tobacco industry essay

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
My Account Login
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 21 January 2021

The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence

Luisa S. Flor ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6888-512X 1 ,
Marissa B. Reitsma 1 ,
Vinay Gupta 1 ,
Marie Ng ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8243-4096 2 &
Emmanuela Gakidou ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8992-591X 1

Nature Medicine volume 27 , pages 239–243 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

33k Accesses

112 Citations

364 Altmetric

Metrics details

Risk factors

Substantial global effort has been devoted to curtailing the tobacco epidemic over the past two decades, especially after the adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control 1 by the World Health Organization in 2003. In 2015, in recognition of the burden resulting from tobacco use, strengthened tobacco control was included as a global development target in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development 2 . Here we show that comprehensive tobacco control policies—including smoking bans, health warnings, advertising bans and tobacco taxes—are effective in reducing smoking prevalence; amplified positive effects are seen when these policies are implemented simultaneously within a given country. We find that if all 155 countries included in our counterfactual analysis had adopted smoking bans, health warnings and advertising bans at the strictest level and raised cigarette prices to at least 7.73 international dollars in 2009, there would have been about 100 million fewer smokers in the world in 2017. These findings highlight the urgent need for countries to move toward an accelerated implementation of a set of strong tobacco control practices, thus curbing the burden of smoking-attributable diseases and deaths.

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

The economic commitment of climate change

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Decades after its ill effects on human health were first documented, tobacco smoking remains one of the major global drivers of premature death and disability. In 2017, smoking was responsible for 7.1 (95% uncertainty interval (UI), 6.8–7.4) million deaths worldwide and 7.3% (95% UI, 6.8%–7.8%) of total disability-adjusted life years 3 . In addition to the health impacts, economic harms resulting from lost productivity and increased healthcare expenditures are also well-documented negative effects of tobacco use 4 , 5 . These consequences highlight the importance of strengthening tobacco control, a critical and timely step as countries work toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals 2 .

In 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) led the development of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), the first global health treaty intended to bolster tobacco use curtailment efforts among signatory member states 1 . Later, in 2008, to assist the implementation of tobacco control policies by countries, the WHO introduced the MPOWER package, an acronym representing six evidence-based control measures (Table 1 ) (ref. 6 ). While accelerated adoption of some of these demand reduction policies was observed among FCTC parties in the past decade 7 , many challenges remain to further decrease population-level tobacco use. Given the differing stages of the tobacco epidemic and tobacco control across countries, consolidating the evidence base on the effectiveness of policies in reducing smoking is necessary as countries plan on how to do better. In this study, we evaluated the association between varying levels of tobacco control measures and age- and sex-specific smoking prevalence using data from 175 countries and highlighted missed opportunities to decrease smoking rates by predicting the global smoking prevalence under alternative unrealized policy scenarios.

Despite the enhanced global commitment to control tobacco use, the pace of progress in reducing smoking prevalence has been heterogeneous across geographies, development status, sex and age 8 ; in 2017, there were still 1.1 billion smokers across the 195 countries and territories assessed by the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study. Global smoking prevalence in 2017 among men and women aged 15 and older, 15–29 years, 30–49 years and 50 years and older are shown in Extended Data Figs. 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 , respectively. We found that, between 2009 and 2017, current smoking prevalence declined by 7.7% for men (36.3% (95% UI, 35.9–36.6%) to 33.5% (95% UI, 32.9–34.1%)) and by 15.2% for women globally (7.9% (95% UI, 7.8–8.1%) to 6.7% (95% UI, 6.5–6.9%)). The highest relative decreases were observed among men and women aged 15–29 years, at 10% and 20%, respectively. Conversely, prevalence decreased less intensively for those aged over 50, at 2% for men and 9.5% for women. While some countries have shown an important reduction in smoking prevalence between 2009 and 2017, such as Brazil, suggesting sustained progress in tobacco control, a handful of countries and territories have shown considerable increases in smoking rates among men (for example, Albania) and women (for example, Portugal) over this time period.

In an effort to counteract the harmful lifelong consequences of smoking, countries have, overall, implemented stronger demand reduction measures after the FCTC ratification. To assess national-level legislation quality, the WHO attributes a score to each of the MPOWER measures that ranges from 1 to 4 for the monitoring component (M) and 1–5 for the other components. A score of 1 represents no known data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each measure, from the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy) to the highest level of achievement (strongest policy) 6 . Between 2008 and 2016, although very little progress was made in treatment provision (O) 7 , 9 , the share of the total population covered by best practice (score = 5) P, W and E measures increased (Fig. 1 ). Notably, however, a massive portion of the global population is still not covered by comprehensive laws. As an example, less than 15% of the global population is protected by strongly regulated tobacco advertising (E) and the number of people (2.1 billion) living in countries where none or very limited smoke-free policies (P) are in place (score = 2) is still nearly twice as high as the population (1.1 billion) living in locations with national bans on smoking in all public places (score = 5).

To assess national-level legislation quality, the WHO attributes a score to each MPOWER component that ranges from 1 to 5 for smoke-free (P), health warning (W) and advertising (E) policies. A score of 1 represents no known data or no recent data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each policy, from 2 representing the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy), to 5 representing the highest level of achievement (strongest policy).

Source data

In terms of fiscal policies (R), the population-weighted average price, adjusted for inflation, of a pack of cigarettes across 175 countries with available data increased from I$3.10 (where I$ represents international dollars) in 2008 to I$5.38 in 2016. However, from an economic perspective, for prices to affect purchasing decisions, they need to be evaluated relative to income. The relative income price (RIP) of cigarettes is a measure of affordability that reflects, in this study, what proportion of the country-specific per capita gross domestic product (GDP) is needed to purchase half a pack of cigarettes a day for a year. Over time, cigarettes have become less affordable (RIP 2016 > RIP 2008) in about 75% of the analyzed countries, with relatively more affordable cigarettes concentrated across high-income countries.

Our adjusted analysis indicates that greater levels of achievement on key measures across the P, W and E policy categories and higher RIP values were significantly associated with reduced smoking prevalence from 2009 to 2017 (Table 2 ). Among men aged 15 and older, each 1-unit increment in achievement scores for smoking bans (P) was independently associated with a 1.1% (95% UI, −1.7 to −0.5, P < 0.0001) decrease in smoking prevalence. Similarly, an increase of 1 point in W and E scores was associated with a decrease in prevalence of 2.1% (95% UI, −2.7 to −1.6, P < 0.0001) and 1.9% (95% UI, −2.6 to −1.1, P < 0.0001), respectively. Furthermore, a 10 percentage point increase in RIP was associated with a 9% (95% UI, −12.6 to −5.0, P < 0.0001) decrease in overall smoking prevalence. Results were similar for men from other age ranges.

Among women, the magnitude of effect of different policy indicators varied across age groups. For those aged over 15, each 1-point increment in W and E scores was independently associated with an average reduction in prevalence of 3.6% (95% UI, −4.5 to −2.9, P < 0.0001) and 1.9% (95% UI, −2.9 to −1.8, P = 0.002), respectively, and these findings were similar across age groups. Smoking ban (P) scores were not associated with reduced prevalence among women aged 15–29 years or over 50 years. However, a 1-unit increase in P scores was associated with a 1.3% (95% UI, −2.3 to −0.2, P = 0.016) decline in prevalence among women aged 30–49 years. Lastly, while a 10 percentage point increase in RIP lowered women smoking prevalence by 6% overall (95% UI, −10.0 to −2.0, P = 0.014), this finding was not statistically significant when examining reductions in prevalence among those aged 50 and older (Table 2 ).

If tobacco control had remained at the level it was in 2008 for all 155 countries (with non-missing policy indicators for both 2008 and 2016; Methods ) included in the counterfactual analysis, we estimate that smoking prevalence would have been even higher than the observed 2017 rates, with 23 million more male smokers and 8 million more female smokers (age ≥ 15) worldwide (Table 3 ). Out of the counterfactual scenarios explored, the greatest progress in reducing smoking prevalence would have been observed if a combination of higher prices—resulting in reduced affordability levels—and strictest P, W and E laws had been implemented by all countries, leading to lower smoking rates among men and women from all age groups and approximately 100 million fewer smokers across all countries (Table 3 ). Under this policy scenario, the greatest relative decrease in prevalence would have been seen among those aged 15–29 for both sexes, resulting in 26.6 and 6.5 million fewer young male and female smokers worldwide in 2017, respectively.

Our findings reaffirm that a wide spectrum of tobacco demand reduction policies has been effective in reducing smoking prevalence globally; however, it also indicates that even though much progress has been achieved, there is considerable room for improvement and efforts need to be strengthened and accelerated to achieve additional gains in global health. A growing body of research points to the effectiveness of tobacco control measures 10 , 11 , 12 ; however, this study covers the largest number of countries and years so far and reveals that the observed impact has varied by type of control policy and across sexes and age groups. In high-income countries, stronger tobacco control efforts are also associated with higher cessation ratios (that is, the ratio of former smokers divided by the number of ever-smokers (current and former smokers)) and decreases in cigarette consumption 13 , 14 .

Specifically, our results suggest that men are, in general, more responsive to tobacco control interventions compared to women. Notably, with prevalence rates for women being considerably low in many locations, variations over time are more difficult to detect; thus, attributing causes to changes in outcome can be challenging. Yet, there is already evidence that certain elements of tobacco control policies that play a role in reducing overall smoking can have limited impact among girls and women, particularly those of low socioeconomic status 15 . Possible explanations include the different value judgments attached to smoking among women with respect to maintaining social relationships, improving body image and hastening weight control 16 .

Tax and price increases are recognized as the most impactful tobacco control policy among the suite of options under the MPOWER framework 10 , 14 , 17 , particularly among adolescents and young adults 18 . Previous work has also demonstrated that women are less sensitive than men to cigarette tax increases in the USA 19 . Irrespective of these demographic differences, effective tax policy is underutilized and only six countries—Argentina, Chile, Cuba, Egypt, Palau and San Marino—had adopted cigarette taxes that corresponded to the WHO-prescribed level of 70% of the price of a full pack by 2017 (ref. 20 ). Cigarettes also remain highly affordable in many countries, particularly among high-income nations, an indication that affordability-based prescriptions to countries, instead of isolated taxes and prices reforms, are possibly more useful as a tobacco control target. In addition, banning sales of single cigarettes, restricting legal cross-border shopping and fighting illicit trade are required so that countries can fully experience the positive effect of strengthened fiscal policies.

Smoke-free policies, which restrict the opportunities to smoke and decrease the social acceptability of smoking 17 , also affect population groups differently. In general, women are less likely to smoke in public places, whereas men might be more frequently influenced by smoking bans in bars, restaurants, clubs and workplaces across the globe due to higher workforce participation rates 16 . In addition to leading to reduced overall smoking rates, as indicated in this study, implementing complete smoking bans (that is, all public places completely smoke-free) at a faster pace can also play an important role in minimizing the burden of smoking-attributable diseases and deaths among nonsmokers. In 2017 alone, 2.18% (95% UI, 1.8–2.7%) of all deaths were attributable to secondhand smoke globally, with the majority of the burden concentrated among women and children 21 .

Warning individuals about the harms of tobacco use increases knowledge about the health risks of smoking and promotes changes in smoking-related behaviors, while full advertising and promotion bans—implemented by less than 20% of countries in 2017 (ref. 20 )—are associated with decreased tobacco consumption and smoking initiation rates, particularly among youth 17 , 22 , 23 . Large and rotating pictorial graphic warnings are the most effective in attracting smokers’ attention but are lacking in countries with high numbers of smokers, such as China and the USA 20 . Adding best practice health warnings to unbranded packages seems to be an effective way of informing about the negative effects of smoking while also eliminating the tobacco industry’s marketing efforts of using cigarette packages to make these products more appealing, especially for women and young people who are now the prime targets of tobacco companies 24 , 25 .

While it is clear that strong implementation and enforcement are crucial to accelerating progress in reducing smoking and its burden globally, our heterogeneous results by type of policy and demographics highlight the challenges of a one-size-fits-all approach in terms of tobacco control. The differences identified illustrate the need to consider the stages 26 of the smoking epidemics among men and women and the state of tobacco control in each country to identify the most pressing needs and evaluate the way ahead. Smoking patterns are also influenced by economic, cultural and political determinants; thus, future efforts in assessing the effectiveness of tobacco control policies under these different circumstances are of value. As tobacco control measures have been more widely implemented, tobacco industry forces have expanded and threaten to delay or reverse global progress 27 . Therefore, closing loopholes through accelerated universal adoption of the comprehensive set of interventions included in MPOWER, guaranteeing that no one is left unprotected, is an urgent requirement as efforts toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 are intensified.

This was an ecological time series analysis that aimed to estimate the effect of four key demand reduction measures on smoking rates across 175 countries. Country-year-specific achievement scores for P, W and E measures and an affordability metric measured by RIP—to capture the impact of fiscal policy (R)—were included as predictors in the model. Although the WHO also calls for monitoring (M) and tobacco cessation (O) interventions, these were not evaluated. Monitoring tobacco use is not considered a demand reduction measure, while very little progress has been made in treatment provision over the last decade 7 , 9 . Further information on research design is available in the Life Sciences Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Smoking outcome data

The dependent variable is represented by country-specific, age-standardized estimates of current tobacco smoking prevalence, defined as individuals who currently use any smoked tobacco product on a daily or occasional basis. Complete time series estimates of smoking prevalence from 2009 to 2017 for men and women aged 15–29, 30–49, 50 years and older and 15 years and older, were taken from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study.

The GBD is a scientific effort to quantify the comparative magnitude of health loss due to diseases, injuries and risk factors by age, sex and geography for specific points in time. While full details on the estimation process for smoking prevalence have been published elsewhere, we briefly describe the main analytical steps in this article 3 . First, 2,870 nationally representative surveys meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically identified and extracted. Since case definitions vary between surveys, for example, some surveys only ask about daily smoking as opposed to current smoking that includes both daily and occasional smokers, the extracted data were adjusted to the reference case definition using a linear regression fit on surveys reporting multiple case definitions. Next, for surveys with only tabulated data available, nonstandard age groups and data reported as both sexes combined were split using observed age and sex patterns. These preprocessing steps ensured that all data used in the modeling were comparable. Finally, spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, a three-step modeling process used extensively in the GBD to estimate risk factor exposure, was used to estimate a complete time series for every country, age and sex. In the first step, estimates of tobacco consumption from supply-side data are incorporated to guide general levels and trends in prevalence estimates. In the second step, patterns observed in locations, age groups and years with smoking prevalence data are synthesized to improve the first-step estimates. This step is particularly important for countries and time periods with limited or no available prevalence data. The third step incorporates and quantifies uncertainty from sampling error, non-sampling error and the preprocessing data adjustments. For this analysis, the final age-specific estimates were age-standardized using the standard population based on GBD population estimates. Age standardization, while less important for the narrower age groups, ensured that the estimated effects of policies were not due to differences in population structure, either within or between countries.

Using GBD-modeled data is a strength of the study since nearly 3,000 surveys inform estimates and countries are not required to have complete survey coverage between 2009 and 2017 to be included in the analysis. Yet, it is important to note that these estimates have limitations. For example, in countries where a prevalence survey was not conducted after the enactment of a policy, modeled estimates may not reflect changes in prevalence resulting from that policy. Nonetheless, the prevalence estimates from the GBD used in this study are similar to those presented in the latest WHO report 28 , indicating the validity and consistency of said estimates.

MPOWER data

Summary indicators of country-specific achievements for each MPOWER measure are released by the WHO every two years and date back to 2007. Data from different iterations of the WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic (2008 6 , 2009 29 , 2011 30 , 2013 31 , 2015 32 and 2017 20 ) were downloaded from the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative website ( https://www.who.int/tobacco/about/en/ ). To assess the quality of national-level legislation, the WHO attributes a score to each MPOWER component that ranges from 1 to 4 for the monitoring (M) dimension and 1–5 for the other dimensions. A score of 1 represents no known data or no recent data, while scores 2–5 characterize the overall strength of each policy, from the lowest level of achievement (weakest policy) to the highest (strongest policy).

Specifically, smoke-free legislation (P) is assessed to determine whether smoke-free laws provide for a complete indoor smoke-free environment at all times in each of the respective places: healthcare facilities; educational facilities other than universities; universities; government facilities; indoor offices and workplaces not considered in any other category; restaurants or facilities that serve mostly food; cafes, pubs and bars or facilities that serve mostly beverages; and public transport. Achievement scores are then based on the number of places where indoor smoking is completely prohibited. Regarding health warning policies (W), the size of the warnings on both the front and back of the cigarette pack are averaged to calculate the percentage of the total pack surface area covered by the warning. This information is combined with seven best practice warning characteristics to construct policy scores for the W dimension. Finally, countries achievements in banning tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (E) are assessed based on whether bans cover the following types of direct and indirect advertising: (1) direct: national television and radio; local magazines and newspapers; billboards and outdoor advertising; and point of sale (indoors); (2) indirect: free distribution of tobacco products in the mail or through other means; promotional discounts; nontobacco products identified with tobacco brand names; brand names of nontobacco products used or tobacco products; appearance of tobacco brands or products in television and/or films; and sponsorship.

P, W and E achievement scores, ranging from 2 to 5, were included as predictors into the model. The goal was to not only capture the effect of adopting policies at its highest levels but also assess the reduction in prevalence that could be achieved if countries moved into the expected direction in terms of implementing stronger measures over time. Additionally, having P, W and E scores separately, and not combined into a composite score, enabled us to capture the independent effect of different types of policies.

Although compliance is a critical factor in understanding policy effectiveness, the achievement scores incorporated in our main analysis reflect the adoption of legislation rather than degree of enforcement, representing a limitation of these indicators.

Prices in I$ for a 20-cigarette pack of the most sold brand in each of the 175 countries were also sourced from the WHO Tobacco Free Initiative website for all available years (2008, 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016). I$ standardize prices across countries and also adjust for inflation across time. This information was used to construct an affordability metric that captures the impact of cigarette prices on smoking prevalence, considering the income level of each country.

More specifically, the RIP, calculated as the percentage of per capita GDP required to purchase one half pack of cigarettes a day over the course of a year, was computed for each available country and year. Per capita GDP estimates were drawn from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation; the estimation process is detailed elsewhere 33 .

Given that the price data used in the analysis refer to the most sold brand of cigarettes only, it does not reflect the full range of prices of different types of tobacco products available in each location. This might particularly affect our power in detecting a strong effect in countries where other forms of tobacco are more popular.

Statistical analysis

Sex- and age-specific logit-transformed prevalence estimates from 2009 to 2017 were matched to one-year lagged achievement scores and RIP values using country and year identifiers 34 . The final sample consisted of 175 countries and was constrained to locations and years with non-missing indicators. A multiple linear mixed effects model fitted by restricted maximum likelihood was used to assess the independent effect of P, W and E scores and RIP values on the rates of current smoking. Specifically, a country random intercept and a country random slope on RIP were included to account for geographical heterogeneity and within-country correlation. The regression model takes the following general form:

where y c,t is the prevalence of current smoking in each country ( c ) and year ( t ), β 0 is the intercept for the model and β p , β w , β e and β r are the fixed effects for each of the policy predictors. $\mathrm{P}_{c,\,t - 1},\,\mathrm{W}_{c,\,t - 1},\,\mathrm{E}_{c,\,t - 1}$ are the P, W and E scores and R c , t −1 is the RIP value for country c in year t − 1. Finally, α c is the random intercept for country ( c ), while δ c represent the random slope for the country ( c ) to which the RIP value (R t − 1 ) belongs. Variance inflation factor values were calculated for all the predictor parameters to check for multicollinearity; the values found were low (<2) 35 . Bivariate models were also run and are shown in Extended Data Fig. 5 . The one-year lag introduced into the model may have led to an underestimation of effect sizes, particularly as many MPOWER policies require a greater period of time to be implemented effectively. However, due to the limited time range of our data (spanning eight years in total), introducing a longer lag period would have resulted in the loss of additional data points, thus further limiting our statistical power in detecting relevant associations between policies and smoking prevalence.

In addition to a joint model for smokers from both sexes, separate regressions were fitted for men and women and the four age groups (15–29, 30–49, ≥50 and ≥15 years old). To assess the validity of the mixed effects analyses, likelihood ratio tests comparing the models with random effects to the null models with only fixed effects were performed. Linear mixed models were fitted by maximum likelihood and t -tests used Satterthwaite approximations to degrees of freedom. P values were considered statistically significant if <0.05. All analyses were executed with RStudio v.1.1.383 using the lmer function in the R package lme4 v.1.1-21 (ref. 36 ).

A series of additional models to examine the impact of tobacco control policies were developed as part of this study. In each model, cigarette affordability (RIP) and a different set of policy metrics was used to capture the implementation, quality and compliance of tobacco control legislation. In models 1 and 2, we replaced the achievements scores by the proportion of P, W and E measures adopted by each country out of all possible measures reported by the WHO. In model 3, we used P and E (direct and indirect measures separately) compliance scores provided by the WHO to represent actual legislation implementation. Finally, an interaction term for compliance and achievement to capture the combined effect of legislation quality and performance was added to model 4. Results for men and women by age group for each of the additional models are presented in the Supplemental Information (Supplementary Tables 1–4 ).

The main model described in this study was chosen because it includes a larger number of country-year observations ( n = 823) when compared to models including compliance scores and because it is more directly interpretable.

Counterfactual analysis

To further explore and quantify the impact of tobacco control policies on current smoking prevalence, we simulated what smoking prevalence across all countries would have been achieved in 2017 under 4 alternative policy scenarios: (1) if achievement scores and RIP remained at the level they were at in 2008; (2) if all countries had implemented each of P, W and E component at the highest level (score = 5); (3) if the price of a cigarette pack was I$7.73 or higher, a price that represents the 90th percentile of observed prices across all countries and years; and (4) if countries had implemented the P, W and E components at the highest level and higher cigarette prices. To keep our results consistent across scenarios, we restricted our analysis to 155 countries with non-missing policy-related indicators for both 2008 and 2016.

Random effects were used in model fitting but not in this prediction. Simulated prevalence rates were calculated by multiplying the estimated marginal effect of each policy by the alternative values proposed in each of the counterfactual scenarios for each country-year. The global population-weighted average was computed for status quo and counterfactual scenarios using population data sourced from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Using the predicted prevalence rates and population data, the additional reduction in the number of current smokers in 2017 was also computed. Since models were ran using age-standardized prevalence, the number of smokers was proportionally redistributed across age groups using the sex-specific numbers from the age group 15 and older as an envelope.

The UIs for predicted estimates were based on a computation of the results of each of the 1,000 draws (unbiased random samples) taken from the uncertainty distribution of each of the estimated coefficients; the lower bound of the 95% UI for the final quantity of interest is the 2.5 percentile of the distribution and the upper bound is the 97.5 percentile of the distribution.

Reporting Summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is publicly available at http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-tobacco-control-and-smoking-prevalence-scenarios-2017 ( https://doi.org/10.6069/QAZ7-6505 ). The dataset contains all data necessary to interpret, replicate and build on the methods or findings reported in the article. Tobacco control policy data that support the findings of this study are released every two years as part of the WHO’s Global Report on Tobacco Control; these data are also directly accessible at https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/en/ . Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All code used for these analyses is available at http://ghdx.healthdata.org/record/ihme-data/global-tobacco-control-and-smoking-prevalence-scenarios-2017 and https://github.com/ihmeuw/team/tree/effects_tobacco_policies .

World Health Organization. WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control https://www.who.int/fctc/text_download/en/ (2003).

United Nations. Transforming Our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication (2015).

Stanaway, J. D. et al. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet 392 , 1923–1994 (2018).

Article Google Scholar

Jha, P. & Peto, R. Global effects of smoking, of quitting, and of taxing tobacco. N. Engl. J. Med. 370 , 60–68 (2014).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Ekpu, V. U. & Brown, A. K. The economic impact of smoking and of reducing smoking prevalence: review of evidence. Tob. Use Insights 8 , 1–35 (2015).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic, 2008: the MPOWER Package https://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2008/en/ (2008).

Chung-Hall, J., Craig, L., Gravely, S., Sansone, N. & Fong, G. T. Impact of the WHO FCTC over the first decade: a global evidence review prepared for the Impact Assessment Expert Group. Tob. Control 28 , s119–s128 (2019).

Reitsma, M. B. et al. Smoking prevalence and attributable disease burden in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 389 , 1885–1906 (2017).

Nilan, K., Raw, M., McKeever, T. M., Murray, R. L. & McNeill, A. Progress in implementation of WHO FCTC Article 14 and its guidelines: a survey of tobacco dependence treatment provision in 142 countries. Addiction 112 , 2023–2031 (2017).

Dubray, J., Schwartz, R., Chaiton, M., O’Connor, S. & Cohen, J. E. The effect of MPOWER on smoking prevalence. Tob. Control 24 , 540–542 (2015).

Anderson, C. L., Becher, H. & Winkler, V. Tobacco control progress in low and middle income countries in comparison to high income countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13 , 1039 (2016).

Gravely, S. et al. Implementation of key demand-reduction measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and change in smoking prevalence in 126 countries: an association study. Lancet Public Health 2 , e166–e174 (2017).

Ngo, A., Cheng, K.-W., Chaloupka, F. J. & Shang, C. The effect of MPOWER scores on cigarette smoking prevalence and consumption. Prev. Med. 105S , S10–S14 (2017).

Feliu, A. et al. Impact of tobacco control policies on smoking prevalence and quit ratios in 27 European Union countries from 2006 to 2014. Tob. Control 28 , 101–109 (2019).

Google Scholar

Greaves, L. Gender, equity and tobacco control. Health Sociol. Rev. 16 , 115–129 (2007).

Amos, A., Greaves, L., Nichter, M. & Bloch, M. Women and tobacco: a call for including gender in tobacco control research, policy and practice. Tob. Control 21 , 236–243 (2012).

Hoffman, S. J. & Tan, C. Overview of systematic reviews on the health-related effects of government tobacco control policies. BMC Public Health 15 , 744 (2015).

Chaloupka, F. J., Straif, K. & Leon, M. E. Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control. Tob. Control 20 , 235–238 (2011).

Rice, N., Godfrey, C., Slack, R., Sowden, A. & Worthy, G. A Systematic Review of the Effects of Price on the Smoking Behaviour of Young People (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009); https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/crdweb/ShowRecord.asp?LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013060057&LinkFrom=OAI&ID=12013060057

World Health Organizaion. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2017: Monitoring Tobacco Use and Prevention Policies https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2017/en/ (2017).

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. GBD Compare https://vizhub.healthdata.org/gbd-compare/ (2017).

Saffer, H. & Chaloupka, F. The effect of tobacco advertising bans on tobacco consumption. J. Health Econ. 19 , 1117–1137 (2000).

Noar, S. M. et al. The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Soc. Sci. Med. 164 , 118–129 (2016).

Moodie, C., Brose, L. S., Lee, H. S., Power, E. & Bauld, L. How did smokers respond to standardised cigarette packaging with new, larger health warnings in the United Kingdom during the transition period? A cross-sectional online survey. Addict. Res. Theory 28 , 53–61 (2020).

Wakefield, M. et al. Australian adult smokers’ responses to plain packaging with larger graphic health warnings 1 year after implementation: results from a national cross-sectional tracking survey. Tob. Control 24 , ii17–ii25 (2015).

Thun, M., Peto, R., Boreham, J. & Lopez, A. D. Stages of the cigarette epidemic on entering its second century. Tob. Control 21 , 96–101 (2012).

Bialous, S. A. Impact of implementation of the WHO FCTC on the tobacco industry’s behaviour. Tob. Control 28 , s94–s96 (2019).

World Health Organization. Global Report on Trends in Prevalence of Tobacco Smoking 2000–2025 http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/surveillance/trends-tobacco-smoking-second-edition/en/ (2018).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2009: Implementing Smoke-Free Environments https://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/2009/en/ (2009).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2011: Warning About the Dangers of Tobacco https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2011/en/ (2011).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2013: Enforcing Bans on Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2013/en/ (2013).

World Health Organization. WHO Report on the Global Tobacco Epidemic 2015: Raising Taxes on Tobacco https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/2015/en/ (2015).

James, S. L., Gubbins, P., Murray, C. J. & Gakidou, E. Developing a comprehensive time series of GDP per capita for 210 countries from 1950 to 2015. Popul. Health Metr. 10 , 12 (2012).

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Global Tobacco Control and Smoking Prevalence Scenarios 2017 (dataset) (Global Health Data Exchange, 2020).

Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N. & Elphick, C. S. A protocol for data exploration to avoid common statistical problems. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1 , 3–14 (2010).

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies (grant 47386, Initiative to Reduce Tobacco Use). We thank the support of the Tobacco Metrics Team Advisory Group, which provided valuable comments and suggestions over several iterations of this manuscript. We also thank the Tobacco Free Initiative team at the WHO and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids for making the tobacco control legislation data available and providing clarifications when necessary. We thank A. Tapp, E. Mullany and J. Whisnant for assisting in the management and execution of this study. We thank the team who worked in a previous iteration of this project, especially A. Reynolds, C. Margono, E. Dansereau, K. Bolt, M. Subart and X. Dai. Lastly, we thank all GBD 2017 Tobacco collaborators for their valuable work in providing feedback to our smoking prevalence estimates throughout the GBD 2017 cycle.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Department of Health Metrics Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Luisa S. Flor, Marissa B. Reitsma, Vinay Gupta & Emmanuela Gakidou

IBM Watson Health, San Jose, CA, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.S.F., M.N. and E.G. conceptualized the study and designed the analytical framework. M.B.R. and V.G. provided input on data, results and interpretation. L.S.F. and E.G. wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuela Gakidou .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Jennifer Sargent was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 years and older (age-standardized) in 2017..

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 years and older for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 2 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 to 29 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 15–29 years old for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 3 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 30 to 49 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 30–49 years old for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 4 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 50 years and older (age-standardized) in 2017.

Age-standardized smoking prevalence (%) estimates from the 2017 Global Burden of Disease Study for men (a) and women (b) aged 50 years and older for 195 countries. Smoking is defined as current use of any type of smoked tobacco product. Details on the estimation process can be found in the Methods section and elsewhere 3 .

Extended Data Fig. 5 Percentage changes in current smoking prevalence based on fixed effect coefficients from bivariate mixed effect linear regression models, by policy component, sex and age group.

Bivariate models examined the unadjusted association between smoke-free (P), health warnings (W), and advertising (E) achievement scores, and cigarette’s affordability (RIP) and current smoking prevalence, from 2009 to 2017, across 175 countries (n = 823 country-years). Linear mixed models were fit by maximum likelihood and t-tests used Satterthwaite approximations to degrees of freedom. P values were considered statistically significant if lower than 0.05.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Tables 1–4: additional models results.

Source Data Fig. 1

Input data for Fig. 1 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Input data for Extended Data 1 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Input data for Extended Data 2 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Input data for Extended Data 3 replication.

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Input data for Extended Data 4 replication.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Flor, L.S., Reitsma, M.B., Gupta, V. et al. The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence. Nat Med 27 , 239–243 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8

Download citation

Received : 28 May 2020

Accepted : 10 December 2020

Published : 21 January 2021

Issue Date : February 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01210-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Marketing claims, promotional strategies, and product information on malaysian e-cigarette retailer websites-a content analysis.

Sameeha Misriya Shroff
Chandrashekhar T Sreeramareddy

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2024)

Challenges in legitimizing further measures against smoking in jurisdictions with robust infrastructure for tobacco control: how far can the authorities allow themselves to go?

Karl Erik Lund
Gunnar Saebo

Harm Reduction Journal (2024)

Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020

Delia Hendrie

Globalization and Health (2024)

Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study

Luisa S. Flor
Jason A. Anderson
Emmanuela Gakidou

Nature Medicine (2024)

Predictors of quitting smoking behavior: evidence from Pakistan

Assad Ullah Khan
Sareer Ahmad

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Tobacco — The Tobacco Industry United States

The Tobacco Industry United States

Categories: Tobacco Tobacco Use

About this sample

Words: 1992 |

10 min read

Published: Aug 30, 2022

Words: 1992 | Pages: 4 | 10 min read

Works Cited

Bach, Laura. “Our Team.” Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 6 Mar. 2019, www.tobaccofreekids.org/about/our-team.
Bates, Clive. Tobacco Explained: The Truth about the Tobacco Industry ... in Its Own Word. Tobacco Free Initiative, 2000.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. “Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products.” NIDA, www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cigarettes-other-tobacco-products.
“Tobacco Control Policy: How the Government Fights Big Tobacco.” Tobacco, tobaccofreelife.org/resources/tobacco-control-policy-government/.
Thomas Riggs 'Tobacco Industry.' Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. EconomicHistory, edited by Thomas Riggs, 2nd ed., vol.3, Gale, 2015, pp. 1327-1329.StudentResources In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3611000903/SUIC?u=j079907005&sid=SIC&xid=e285505e.Accessed 19 Mar. 2019.
“U.S. Government and the Tobacco Industry.” Online Exhibits Yale, exhibits.library.yale.edu/exhibits/show/selling smoke/government.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 789 words

6 pages / 2528 words

4 pages / 2003 words

3 pages / 1162 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Tobacco

In the "should smoking be illegal argumentative" debate, one of the primary concerns is the well-known harmful effects of cigarettes on the human body. Many people are aware that smoking cigarettes is detrimental. Cigarettes [...]

Vape has become one of the most popular means of smoking nowadays. People find that vaping is better than smoking cigarettes. Vape has many characteristics those attract people to take it instead of cigarettes. As people are [...]

Initial impressions of a person smoking Association of smoking with wealth and maturity Irony of anti-smoking education Relaxation and stress reduction Taking breaks and social interactions Life skills [...]

In Indonesia, the culture that has embedded the nation is the intensive consumption of tobacco as it is traditionally spread through the country. The analysis of the study is to offer a focus on the impacts of the Indonesian [...]

For years there has been conflicting research whether smoking should be banned or not and it is a significant issue today. Many people have given up smoking while others still continue to smoke. Smoking is the inhalation and [...]

Tobacco use has become a popular pastime in our country. While there are many justified uses for which people elect to smoke or chew it, the health risks outweigh all benefits that people may experience. This research assignment [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Tobacco Industry Essays

That cloud of smoke is not a mirage, popular essay topics.

American Dream
Artificial Intelligence
Black Lives Matter
Bullying Essay
Career Goals Essay
Causes of the Civil War
Child Abusing
Civil Rights Movement
Community Service
Cultural Identity
Cyber Bullying
Death Penalty
Depression Essay
Domestic Violence
Freedom of Speech
Global Warming
Gun Control
Human Trafficking
I Believe Essay
Immigration
Importance of Education
Israel and Palestine Conflict
Leadership Essay
Legalizing Marijuanas
Mental Health
National Honor Society
Police Brutality
Pollution Essay
Racism Essay
Romeo and Juliet
Same Sex Marriages
Social Media
The Great Gatsby
The Yellow Wallpaper
Time Management
To Kill a Mockingbird
Violent Video Games
What Makes You Unique
Why I Want to Be a Nurse
Send us an e-mail

Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers Essay

Introduction, the dangers of smoking, possible pro-tobacco arguments, annotated bibliography.

Tobacco use, including smoking, has become a universally recognized issue that endangers the health of the population of our entire planet through both active and second-hand smoking. Pro-tobacco arguments are next to non-existent, while its harm is well-documented and proven through past and contemporary studies (Jha et al., 2013). Despite this fact, smoking remains a widespread habit that involves about one billion smokers all over the world, even though lower-income countries are disproportionally affected (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016). In this essay, I will review the dangers of tobacco use and consider some of the remaining pro-tobacco arguments to demonstrate that no reason can explain or support the choice to smoke, which endangers the smoker and other people.

Almost every organ and system in the human body is negatively affected by tobacco, which is why smoking is reported to cause up to six million deaths on an annual basis (WHO, 2016, para. 2). The figure is expected to grow and increase by two million within the next fifteen years (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016a). Smoking can cause cancer in at least sixteen organs (including the respiratory and digestive systems), autoimmune diseases (including diabetes), numerous heart and blood problems (including stroke and hypertension); in addition, it damages lungs, vision, and bones, and leads to reproductive issues (including stillbirth) (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2016).

Moreover, nicotine is addictive, and its withdrawal symptoms include anxiety, which tends to cumulate and contribute to stress (Parrott & Murphy, 2012). Other symptoms may involve mood swings and increased hunger, as well as thinking difficulties (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2016b). Sufficient evidence also indicates that smoking is correlated with alcohol use and that it is capable of affecting one’s mental state to the point of heightening the risks of development of disorders (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2014).

In the end, smoking reduces the human lifespan, as a result of which smokers are twice as likely as non-smokers to die between the ages of 25 and 79 (Jha et al., 2013, p. 341). Fortunately, smoking cessation tends to add up to ten years of life for former smokers, if they were to give up smoking before they turned 40 (Jha et al., 2013, p. 349). Similarly, the risk of developing mental issues also tends to be reversed to an extent, but it is not clear if it becomes completely eliminated or not (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2014). The CDC (2016b) also reports that smoking cessation results in an improved respiratory condition and lower risks of developing cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and infertility.

At the same time, Cavazos-Rehg et al. (2014) state that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that smoking cessation may cause mental issues, which implies that ceasing to smoke is likely to be a very good decision. Unfortunately, it is not always easy; many people make several attempts at quitting, experiencing difficulties because of abstinence symptoms, and in the process may gain weight and may require the help of professional doctors and counselors (CDC, 2016b). It is also noteworthy that only twenty-four countries in the world have comprehensive services aimed specifically at smoking cessation assistance (WHO, 2016, para. 18).

To sum up, tobacco is a drug that is harmful to people’s health, but it is also the basis of a gigantic industry that is subject to taxes, which implies that governments are typically interested in its development (CDC, 2016a). As a result, their spending in the field of prevention and cessation activities may not live up to expectations, despite the fact that governments have multiple means of reducing tobacco consumption, in particular, banning ads, adding taxes, and eliminating illicit trade (WHO, 2016). In the meantime, people who smoke search for arguments in order to rationalize their choice, which contributes to the deterioration of their own health and that of their communities.

It Is Not That Dangerous

It is admittedly difficult to find a reputable source that would promote smoking, which is understandable. However, certain pro-tobacco arguments can be suggested for the sake of attempting to understand the reasons for the phenomenon. For example, given the obvious lack of positive judgments, it may be hinted that the problem is overrated and the horrors of tobacco use are exaggerated. In this case, it is implied that scientific studies that highlight the dangers of smoking are not trustworthy to some extent. In fact, it cannot be denied that untrustworthy studies exist, but the scientific community does its best to eliminate them.

For example, the article by Moylan, Jacka, Pasco, and Berk (2012) contains a critique of 47 studies, which allows the authors to conclude that some research studies do not introduce sufficient controls. Despite this, the authors maintain that there is satisfactory evidence that indicates a correlation between certain mental disorders and smoking. They also admit that the evidence is less homogenous for some disorders, and suggest carrying out a further examination. As a result, it appears possible to consider the effects of tobacco use that are described by reputable organizations and peer-reviewed articles to be correct, which implies that all the horrible outcomes are indeed a possibility.

Tobacco Has Positive Effects

Given the information about tobacco’s negative effects, any number of positive ones that it may have appears insignificant. However, these may still be regarded as a pro-tobacco argument. One example is a calming, “feeling-good” effect that smokers tend to report. Parrott and Murphy (2012) explore this phenomenon, along with other mood-related effects of tobacco use, and explain that the feeling of calmness is the result of abstinence symptoms abatement.

In other words, smokers do not experience calmness when they get a cigarette; instead, they just stop experiencing abstinence-related anxiety. Moreover, apart from causing anxiety as an abstinence symptom, smoking tends to heighten the risks of various mental disorders, including anxiety disorder (Moylan et al., 2012), and alcohol use disorder (Cavazos-Rehg et al., 2014). It may be suggested that the belief in the positive effects of smoking is likely to result from the lack of education on the matter (WHO, 2016).

It Is My Free Choice

The freedom of choice is important to defend, and some may argue that they like the taste of the smoke or enjoy some of its effects (like the above-mentioned calming one), and they have the right to make a choice with regard to what they are going to do with their lives. Unfortunately, there is a factor that makes their choice more socially significant: Second-hand smoke intake also can affect people’s health in a negative way.

WHO (2016) estimates that about 600,000 non-smoking people, who never chose to smoke but were forced to inhale some second-hand smoke, die every year because of smoking-related issues (para. 2). In 2004, twenty-eight percent of second-hand smoke victims were children (WHO, 2016, para. 14). In other words, a smoker needs to be cautious and attempt to ensure that no deaths are caused by his or her free choice.

Moreover, even the freedom of the choice to smoke is sometimes questionable. In particular, the media has been accused of creating alluring images of smoking, which impairs the ability of people to make their own decisions (Malaspina, 2014). Similarly, the phenomenon of social smoking is explained by the wish to fit in within a community, to which teenage persons are especially prone (Nichter, 2015). As a result, the free choice argument may be regarded as typically invalid, which makes tobacco smoking even less reasonable or defensible.

It is extremely simple to argue against tobacco use: The activity has virtually no pluses, and any advantage that can be discovered by a diligent researcher would probably seem insignificant when contrasted to all the problems that smoking tends to cause. Despite this, people proceed to smoke as a result of the lack of education on the matter (WHO, 2016), harmful media images (Malaspina, 2014), and probably a number of other factors.

It is noteworthy, though, that since 2002, the number of people who have managed to quit smoking exceeds that of active smokers (CDC, 2016b, para. 22). Given the pressure of WHO (2016) in urging governments to do more to improve the situation, we may hope that tobacco use will be greatly reduced in the future, and people will stop engaging in this kind of self-harm.

Cavazos-Rehg, P. A., Breslau, N., Hatsukami, D., Krauss, M. J., Spitznagel, E. L., Grucza, R. A.,… & Bierut, L. J. (2014). Smoking cessation is associated with lower rates of mood/anxiety and alcohol use disorders . Psychological Medicine , 44 (12), 2523-2535. Web.

The article investigates the correlation between smoking cessation and certain mental disorders with the help of data from a national longitudinal study that was carried out in the United States between 2001 and 2006 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The article concludes that there is a drop in anxiety disorder as well as the use of alcohol that is related to giving up smoking. The authors highlight the fact that the conclusion is not final and suggest that additional investigation is required. However, in their view, the idea that smoking cessation is related to an increased risk of anxiety disorders remains unproven and even contradicted by the results of their research.

For this essay, the article contributes information about the relationships between smoking and mood issues, which contradicts the myth about nicotine calming people. Also, it demonstrates the positive effects of giving up smoking, which is an argument against continued smoking.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016a). Smoking & tobacco use . Web.

The website offers fast facts on tobacco use, including those for the world and the United States, and illustrates them with the help of statistics. The facts demonstrate that smoking has a negative impact on human health (limiting the lifespan and causing diseases) and results in significant costs for countries (primarily as healthcare expenditures). Also, the website mentions that tobacco prevention expenditures and efforts are often limited. The website finishes with statistics that illustrate the scope of the problem, that is, the number of smokers in the United States.

For this essay, the website contributes useful information and statistics on smoking and its consequences, including data on costs. Also, it mentions the profitability of the tobacco industry, and the issue of preventive measures, arguments that are capable of explaining the phenomenon of the continued existence of the problem of smoking.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016b). Quitting smoking . Web.

The website contains information on the difficulties in quitting, provides relevant statistics, and suggests informative and supportive resources for those who wish to quit. It also highlights the dangers of smoking, the benefits of quitting, and the specifics of nicotine dependence.

For this essay, the website contributes some information on the dangers of smoking with a particular emphasis on the dependence and its consequences. The statistics can be used for illustrative purposes, in particular, with respect to quitting difficulties. However, the website also demonstrates that quitting is possible and beneficial, which is an argument against continued smoking that can be employed in the essay.

Jha, P., Ramasundarahettige, C., Landsman, V., Rostron, B., Thun, M., Anderson, R. N.,… & Peto, R. (2013). 21st-century hazards of smoking and benefits of cessation in the United States . New England Journal of Medicine , 368 (4), 341-350. Web.

The article is devoted to conducting a new research on life expectancy in smokers in order to take into account new factors of the changing environment. Also, the authors consider the life expectancy of the people who have quitted smoking. The study has an impressive sample size: It uses 202,248 histories of smoking cessation. The authors conclude that smokers’ lives are shorter while ceasing to smoke can help to “gain” several years, especially if it is done before the age of 40.

The article offers evidence on lifespan reduction as a result of smoking, and some data on smoking cessation benefits that can be used in the essay as arguments and illustrations. Also, the sample size of the article implies its credibility, making it a more attractive source.

Malaspina, A. (2014). False images, deadly promises . Broomall, Pa.: Mason Crest.

The book contains much information on smoking risks, but it focuses on the role of the media in popularizing this habit. Also, it considers other reasons for taking up smoking, including peer pressure, and mentions the problem of the profitability of the tobacco industry, which hinders the process of smoking eradication.

The book offers a comprehensive overview of the costs of tobacco, which makes it a very useful source. For the essay, the book contributes the study of media tobacco images, which is an interesting perspective. It can be used to demonstrate the question of free choice and the effect of the media on that choice.

Moylan, S., Jacka, F., Pasco, J., & Berk, M. (2012). Cigarette smoking, nicotine dependence and anxiety disorders: a systematic review of population-based, epidemiological studies . BMC Medicine , 10 (1), 123. Web.

The article reviews studies that are devoted to the correlation between anxiety and other mental disorders and smoking. The authors criticize some of the studies, demonstrating that there is limited evidence in some of them, but still conclude that the correlation between smoking and the risk of developing some disorders (in particular, generalized anxiety disorder) is sufficiently proven.

For the essay, the article provides direct information on tobacco use and its consequences and also demonstrates that unscrupulous studies are not unlikely to be produced, but this fact does not prove the lack of dangers in smoking. The existence of unscrupulous studies can be used as a pro-tobacco argument. Given the fact that it is difficult to find reputable sources that contain an alternative (approving) perspective on tobacco, it is a very important contribution to an argumentative essay.

Nichter, M. (2015). Lighting up . New York, NY: NYU Press.

The book contains a significant amount of information on tobacco-related issues, and it specifically focuses on the phenomenon of social smoking in college students. In particular, it discusses the issue of peer pressure as well as wrong perceptions, which are, in part, caused by the media. For example, it examines the harmful stereotype of smoking having a calming effect, which tends to attract youngsters who are experiencing a crisis.

The book is quite comprehensive and contains much useful information on smoking myths. For the essay, the book offers an explanation of one of the reasons for taking up smoking and demonstrates its harmfulness. It can be used to prove a pro-tobacco argument to be false and destructive.

Parrott, A. & Murphy, R. (2012). Explaining the stress-inducing effects of nicotine to cigarette smokers . Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental , 27 (2), 150-155. Web.

The authors explain the mechanism of the abstinence symptoms in smokers, relate it to resulting anxiety disorders, and demonstrate that the perceived calming effect of smoking consists of addiction consequences. In other words, the authors demonstrate that tobacco is only capable of removing the abstinence-related anxiety caused by smoking tobacco, which makes the effect pointless. The authors also review prior studies and show that non-smokers or quitters are less likely to report irritability, stress, depression, and anxiety than smokers.

For the essay, the article explains one of the few pro-tobacco arguments (that smoking has a calming effect) and proves that it is false and harmful. As a result, the article is an important contribution that provides some information on the opposite point of view, according to which there are benefits to smoking, and proves it wrong.

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2016). Effects of smoking on your health .

The website contains detailed information on health-related smoking effects. It demonstrates that there is hardly a part of a smoker’s body that remains unaffected. Also, the website describes particular issues that are caused by smoking, with respect to every specific part of a human body.

The website is the most comprehensive yet concise source in this bibliography with respect to smoking-related health issues. It presents information in the form of lists and pictures, which helps it to provide more details while taking up less space and readers’ time. For the essay, the website offers information on the health problems that are caused by smoking and describes them in greater detail than the rest of the sources.

World Health Organization. (2016). Tobacco fact sheet . Web.

The website offers limited statistics and information on the dangers of smoking and the process of quitting. Among other things, it describes the dangers of “second-hand” smoke with relevant statistics and an emphasis on the consequences for young children. Also, its states the WHO’s position on the matter, as well as the organization’s recommendations for government-level anti-tobacco activities.

For the essay, the website provides useful tobacco-related information that includes global statistics; the “second-hand” smoke information is also a very important argument that should be used in the paper. Moreover, the website creates a sense of urgency by demonstrating that the issue of tobacco smoking requires the attention of governments and healthcare organizations all over the world.

Smoking Cessation Project Implementation
Advocating for Smoking Cessation: Health Professional Role
Luxury Perspectives: Second-Hand Exclusivity
Occupational Health and Toxicology in the UAE
Lifelong Activity Plan: Movement, Relationships, Diet
Obesity, Its Health Effects and Role of Education
Obesity: Predisposing Factors and Treatment
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights in Healthcare
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 28). Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tobacco-smoking-and-its-dangers/

"Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers." IvyPanda , 28 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/tobacco-smoking-and-its-dangers/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers'. 28 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers." August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tobacco-smoking-and-its-dangers/.

1. IvyPanda . "Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers." August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tobacco-smoking-and-its-dangers/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers." August 28, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/tobacco-smoking-and-its-dangers/.

Our top issues

In our fight to end smoking, vaping and nicotine addiction, we focus on the issues that matter most. We constantly monitor the latest topics and trends in tobacco and substance use.

Youth vaping, smoking & nicotine use
Menthol & flavored tobacco products
Harm reduction
Tobacco & social justice
Tobacco-free communities & campuses
Tobacco industry interference
Tobacco in pop culture
Quitting smoking & vaping
Opioids crisis

Truth Initiative is America's largest nonprofit public health organization committed to making tobacco use and nicotine addiction a thing of the past.

Our mission
Our history
Annual reports

Research & resources

Get the latest facts and analyses on the most important issues related to smoking, vaping, nicotine and substance use.

Search by keywords

Emerging tobacco products
Traditional tobacco products
Targeted communities
Smoking by region
Quitting smoking / vaping

We give young people the facts about smoking, vaping, nicotine and the tobacco industry, engage individuals and groups to make change in their communities, innovate ways to end nicotine addiction and join forces with collaborators committed to a future where tobacco and nicotine addiction are a thing of the past.

Truth Initiative Schroeder Institute®

truth® campaign

Community & youth engagement
Quit smoking & vaping tools
Corporate tobacco cessation programs
Truth Initiative Impact Series
Partnerships

Get involved

Enlist in our movement, explore youth activism programs, share quitting resources and learn about more ways you can get involved.

Take action
Partner with us
Request a training
Participate in our research
Apply for grants or scholarships

Join our newsletter

Search our site.

Sign up for our newsletter

Research and resources

Tobacco and the environment

Harmful Effects of Tobacco
Environment

RELATED MATERIALS

Most young users put disposable e-cigarettes in trash, creating huge streams of toxic and hazardous waste, as companies fail to take responsibility

A toxic, plastic problem: E-cigarette waste and the environment

Tobacco doesn’t just negatively impact the health of individuals, it also endangers the health of the environment. E-cigarette and cigarette waste can make its way into the environment where it pollutes water, air, and land with toxic chemicals, heavy metals, and residual nicotine. An estimated 766,571 metric tons of cigarette butts make their way into the environment every year , and according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, at least five disposable e-cigarettes are being thrown away every second in the United States , amounting to 150 million devices per year – which together contain enough lithium for about 6,000 Teslas. E-cigarette waste contributes to the already overwhelming issue of general electronic waste: in 2019, Americans generated 6.92 kilotons of consumer electronic waste, including e-cigarette waste , all bound for landfills or incinerators. The total amount of e-waste generated globally in 2019 was 53.6 metric tons, and this number is projected to rise to 74.7 metric tons by 2030 .

Cigarette butts are the most frequently littered item in U.S. beaches and waterways. The largest U.S. cigarette companies sold about 190.2 billion cigarettes nationwide in 2021 alone. Cigarette butts are often disposed of on streets, sidewalks, and other public areas, and may then be carried as runoff to drains and ultimately end up polluting rivers, beaches, and oceans. Because cigarette butts are primarily made of plastic filters that don’t biodegrade, the butts that aren’t eaten by wildlife simply pile up on shorelines or at the bottom of bodies of water.

The problem isn’t limited to cigarettes. E-cigarettes contain plastic, electronic and chemical waste and many of them may also end up as litter – a growing problem as the products increase in popularity. In 2022, 321.4 million units of e-cigarettes were sold, generating $5.1 billion in convenience store e-cigarette sales alone. Corporations are projected to reach $8.3 billion in annual e-cigarette revenue in 2023. The lack of safe and environmentally friendly ways to dispose of e-cigarette waste is a growing dilemma, especially given the rise of disposable e-cigarettes. In 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that 2.5 million middle school and high school students reported currently using e-cigarettes, with over half of them using disposables. After disposable e-cigarettes were exempted from federal restrictions on flavors in 2020, they skyrocketed in popularity, with use increasing about 1,000% (from 2.4% to 26.5%) among high school e-cigarette users during 2019-2020. Inexpensive, flavored disposable e-cigarettes such as Puff Bar, which controlled over half of the disposable e-cigarette market in 2021, and Elf Bar have gained popularity and further contribute to e-cigarette waste. This increase in disposable e-cigarette products will eventually become tons of e-cigarette waste as products reach end-of-life.

Cigarette butts have comprised 30%-40% of items collected in annual coastal/urban cleanups since the 1980s.
Cigarette butts are the most prominently littered item on U.S. roadways, retail areas, storm drains, loading docks, construction sites and recreational areas.
Globally, 1,134,292 cigarette butts were cleaned up in beaches and waterways in 2021, making them the world’s second most common type of litter after food wrappers, exceeding plastic bags and straws. Cigarette butts collected in U.S. beaches and waterways amount to over half of that figure making them the number one littered item collected by environmental cleanup crews in the U.S.
However, not all cigarettes butts that are littered are collected. The 2020 Keep America Beautiful survey estimates that the actual number of cigarette butts polluting our environment is closer to 9.7 billion cigarette butts polluting roadways and waterways combined , along with 392 million pieces of other tobacco-related products and packaging, making up nearly 20% of all U.S. litter.
Environmental cleanup efforts are a valuable and helpful endeavor, but they are not enough to combat the effect of littered tobacco. An overall reduction in tobacco use is essential to curbing the detrimental effects on fish, wildlife, public health, and water quality.
79% of smokers consider cigarette butts to be litter, but the majority of smokers (72%) reported littering a butt on the ground at least once in their lifetime and 64% reported tossing them out of a car window at least once in their lifetime.
Smokers litter 47% of the cigarette butts they smoke.

E-CIGARETTES

In 2020, Keep America Beautiful counted 894,700 littered e-cigarettes in U.S. roadways and waterways.
According to a 2022 Truth Initiative survey, over two-thirds of disposable e-cigarette users disposed of the hazardous waste in the trash, where it can start fires in bins, waste trucks, or in waste processing facilities and 9% of young users littered their devices on the ground. Only 8% of young vape users disposed of their e-cigarettes properly through e-waste facilities.
Inadequate or nonexistent safe product disposal guidelines from e-cigarette companies, a lack of recycling programs equipped to process e-cigarette waste, and limited federal guidelines inapplicable to the most popular variety of vapes and disposables, all contribute to the environmentally and publicly hazardous disposal methods common among young users.
E-cigarette manufacturers do not provide guidance to consumers on how to dispose of used devices or pod/cartridge products , and there are no receptacles or specific processes in place.
The average e-cigarette device has a short life span and is often replaced with a newer, more efficient version before it stops working. The average e-cigarette battery only lasts approximately 6-8 months with normal use.
Disposable e-cigarettes are single-use plastic products designed to reach their end-of-life much more quickly.

The actual number of cigarette butts polluting our environment is closer to 9.7 billion cigarette butts polluting roadways and waterways combined

BIODEGRADABILITY

Cigarette filters are made from cellulose acetate, a plastic which only degrades under severe biological circumstances, such as when filters collect in sewage. In practice, cigarette butts tossed on streets and beaches do not biodegrade .

Under optimal conditions, it can take at least nine months for a cigarette butt to degrade .
The sun may break cigarette butts down, but only into smaller pieces of waste which dilute into water/soil.

Growing concerns over the impact of tobacco waste on the environment, as well as the substantial costs of cleanup, have prompted states, municipalities, and institutions to enact a variety of policy actions. For example, 312 municipalities prohibited smoking on beaches and 1,497 prohibited smoking in parks as of July 2017 . In 2022, Florida passed a bill that allows municipalities and counties to restrict smoking on public beaches and in parks. This move was welcomed and backed by several local government bodies and constituents aiming to preserve the state’s delicate natural ecosystem, which includes coral reefs, wetlands, a dense forests. Additionally, four jurisdictions in California (Monterey, Monterey County, San Benito County, and Soledad) have prohibited the sale of single-use e-cigarettes.

Unlike cigarette butts, e-cigarette waste cannot be biodegradable even under severe weather conditions. E-cigarette cartridges discarded on streets mix with leaf litter and get pushed around by weather events, eventually breaking down into microplastics and chemicals that flow into storm drains to pollute waterways and wildlife. E-cigarette-related waste is potentially a more serious environmental threat than cigarette butts because it contains metal, circuitry, disposable plastic cartridges, batteries, and toxic chemicals in e-liquids. Currently, there are only two ways to safely dispose of e-cigarette cartridges: return to e-cigarette manufacturers and vendors for recycling or rinse under running water to remove nicotine residues, wrap in a scrap of biodegradable material, and discard as a plastic waste.

312 municipalities prohibited smoking on beaches and 1,497 prohibited smoking in parks as of July 2017.

LAND, COASTAL AND WATER POLLUTION

Cigarette and e-cigarette waste can pollute soil, beaches, and waterways. Studies have also shown that cigarette and e-cigarette waste is harmful to wildlife.

Cigarette butts cause pollution by being carried as runoff to drains and from there to rivers, beaches and oceans.
Preliminary studies show that organic compounds (such as nicotine, pesticide residues and metal) seep from cigarette butts into aquatic ecosystems , becoming acutely toxic to fish and microorganisms.
In one laboratory study, the chemicals that leached from a single cigarette butt (soaked for 24 hours in a liter of water) released enough toxins to kill 50 percent of the saltwater and freshwater fish exposed to it for 96 hours.
Another laboratory study found that cigarette butts can be a source for heavy metal contamination in water , which may harm local organisms.
A study of the effects of roadside waste on soil found that patterns of hydrocarbon levels in the soil were similar to those of littered cigarette butts. This indicates that the chemicals in the soil had seeped out of cigarette butts. Some hydrocarbons are carcinogenic .
Both the batteries and e-cigarette devices themselves contain hazardous substances such as lead and mercury .
Incompletely used liquid cartridges and refills contain nicotine salts and heavy metals, which leach into soil and waterways or can be ingested by wildlife .
Before lithium-ion batteries can be placed in the trash, they need to be fully discharged and cooled, submerged in cold saltwater for two weeks – covered securely with lid – and wrapped in newspaper .
In California, 40% of the fires at waste facilities between 2016-2018 were reported to have been caused by lithium-ion batteries . Vape batteries may be the greatest threat to waste management programs.
In New York in 2022, firefighters responded to over 200 lithium-ion battery fires stemming from e-scooters and bikes, making lithium-ion batteries the third leading cause of fires in the city.
London Heathrow Airport’s Grundon waste processing facility reported three fires within the past six months in 2023, each suspected to be the result of discarded lithium-ion batteries in disposable vapes . A study by Material Focus , a British not-for-profit aimed at reducing and recycling e-waste, found that 1.3 million disposable vapes are disposed of weekly in the U.K., about 2 vapes per second .
In 2022, leaders from 18 different environmental and public health groups directed an open letter to the U.K.’s Environment Secretary and Health Secretary urging them to launch a full-scale ban on disposable e-cigarettes .

THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S EFFECTS ON DEFORESTATION

Research has found that growing tobacco contributes to deforestation , especially in the developing world. Deforestation for tobacco plantations promotes soil degradation and “failing yields” or the capacity for the land to support the growth of any other crops or vegetation. Tobacco farming is responsible for 5% of all global deforestation.
Tobacco farmers typically clear land by burning it. But this land is often agriculturally marginal and is abandoned after only a few seasons, contributing in many cases to desertification . Burning increases greenhouse gas levels by generating water and air pollutants, and decreasing forest cover which would otherwise absorb the almost 84 million metric tons of CO2 emitted by tobacco production annually.
Production and consumption of tobacco releases carbon dioxide equivalent to driving 17 million gas powered cars each year , according to a 2022 report from the World Health Organization.
718,217 pounds of toxic chemicals were released from U.S. tobacco production facilities in 2021. This number has increased from 674,309 pounds in 2020.
Tobacco production uses more water and wood, and has more pesticides applied to it, than most other crops , further affecting water supplies and contamination of the soil. Tobacco growth uses 22 billion tons of water every year.

Approximately 600 million trees are chopped down every year by the tobacco industry . On average each tree produces enough paper for 15 packs of cigarettes.
Tobacco manufacturers use four miles of paper every hour to wrap and package cigarettes and other products – making the entire industry a sizeable contributor to deforestation. This also leads to the creation of over 2 million tons of packaging waste every year.
Since e-cigarettes quickly rose in popularity in an under-regulated environment, we know little about how e-cigarettes are manufactured and the environmental impact of the production process. Because of the significant impact this rapid rise has had on public health, until recently research and policy on e-cigarettes has focused on the youth e-cigarette crisis and lack of regulation rather than the product’s environmental impact .
E-cigarette companies were required to submit information by September 9, 2020 on the environmental impact of their products as part of applications to the Food and Drug Administration to keep their products on the market, but this information is not yet publicly available.
The lithium contained in e-cigarette batteries is not just an environmental and public health hazard when discarded, but a precious natural resource that must be conserved, reused, and recycled . The ten tons of lithium discarded in vapes yearly in the U.K. alone is enough to construct 1,200 electric vehicles . Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency estimates the world will face lithium shortages by 2025 . Combined with the complicated ethics of sourcing precious resources like lithium and cobalt, including human rights abuses like child labor, forced labor, and hazardous work conditions, disposable e-cigarettes are a tragic waste of this precious element .

INDUSTRY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TOBACCO WASTE

Many e-cigarette manufacturers simply direct users to hazardous waste/electronic waste disposal companies, which often don’t accept e-cigarettes.
From the cellulose acetate of cigarette butts to e-liquid residue and batteries, waste management and hazardous waste disposal plants are not currently equipped to handle either type of waste . Federal regulations have not yet caught up to the need for guidance on disposal.
Currently, there is no legal way to recycle e-cigarettes in the U.S and no documented baseline standards for end-of-life disposal by manufacturers. There is no requirement in place to hold manufacturers accountable for the post-consumer waste they helped produce or to devise a clear and safe system to dispose of these items as hazardous materials or e-waste.
Even though guidance exists on best practices for holding companies like tobacco manufacturers accountable for reducing or disposing of the post-consumer waste that results from use of their products, they are not currently enforced across the industry by any governing body including the Environmental Protection Agency .
States and local agencies that have the authority to enforce hazardous waste penalties can help reduce the environmental impact . As of January 2022, violators of hazardous waste requirements can incur civil penalties of up to $81,540 per day . In 2006, Washington state became one of the first states in the nation to pass a law putting the responsibility for recycling e-waste on the producer , not taxpayers. Manufacturers that produce electronics were required to pay for and manage their recycling.

The tobacco industry is responsible for producing much more than tobacco products — they are guilty of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of cigarette and e-cigarette waste each year.

TOBACCO INDUSTRY NEGLIGENCE

The tobacco industry is responsible for producing much more than tobacco products—they are guilty of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of cigarette and e-cigarette waste each year. Cigarette and e-cigarette waste presents serious threats to the ecosystem and requires a long-term solution. Instead of accepting responsibility for their products, tobacco companies are presenting topical solutions to the environmental problems their products create in a ploy for positive press attention.

Some tobacco companies have included reducing the amount of cigarette butts in the environment as part of their sustainability goals . For example, Philip Morris International claims it endeavors to reduce plastic litter from its products by 50% from 2021 to 2025 as part of its “Our World Is Not an Ashtray” initiative. Campaigns like this one appear to be hypocritical and misleading to the public . The tobacco industry not only created this new waste stream in the first place, but they are also trying to greenwash their harmful practices through misdirection and public displays of eco-activism.

POLICIES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

Tobacco manufacturers need to be held responsible for the extreme amounts of litter that their products create and should facilitate the environmentally safe disposal of their products – both combustible and electronic . Strong local regulations coupled with financial penalties are needed to limit e-cigarette waste and reduce the negative environmental consequences of tobacco products. Such policies have strong support, with 72% of U.S. adults supporting the addition of a $0.75 litter fee for cigarette packs in a 2021 Truth Initiative study. Increasing consumer awareness of the environmental toxicity and dangers posed by discarding cigarette and e-cigarette related waste into landfills, and encouraging smokers and vapers to quit using these products altogether, are the best ways to protect the environment from tobacco product waste.

The federal government could do more as well, including ensuring the tobacco industry is held accountable for waste they produce and enforcing all guidance and best practices regarding tobacco products waste disposal; establishing product and packaging standards that reduce the amount of packaging waste, plastics waste, and hazardous chemicals from tobacco products; requiring tobacco companies to establish recycling programs and other options for properly disposing of tobacco product waste. On a global scale, 175 countries in the United Nations have already committed to developing a legally binding international treaty against pollution and waste from plastic production, use, and disposal by 2024. This treaty, when drafted and enacted, will address the “root causes of plastic pollution” rather than its symptoms. This will be achieved by targeting the entire lifecycle of a single use plastic product from design to production and disposal. This move towards a circular economy from global leaders may finally make an impact on tobacco industry waste, along with many other environmentally detrimental industries and practices.

TAGS: environment the truth about

More in harmful effects of tobacco

3 ways tobacco use impacts your sex life

Vaping advocates promote false claims on Twitter about COVID-19 and e-cigarettes

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Essay: The Tobacco industry

Essay details and download:.

Subject area(s): Health essays
Reading time: 22 minutes
Price: Free download
Published: 21 December 2016*
File format: Text
Words: 6,311 (approx)
Number of pages: 26 (approx)

Text preview of this essay:

This page of the essay has 6,311 words. Download the full version above.

In 1964, the Surgeon General of the United States of America published a report documenting all of the known health risks associated with smoking cigarettes. Up until that point, cigarettes were so prevalent in American culture that doctors smoked and tobacco companies advertised using children’s cartoon figures. However, in the past 50 years, the United States has seen a dramatic decrease in the number of people who smoke cigarettes or use other tobacco products going from nearly half of the population being regular smokers to only one in six. [1] It is important to evaluate the implementation of anti-tobacco policy in order to be able to replicate the unprecedented success that it has had. The United States tackled the smoking epidemic by destroying the brand image built up through decades of marketing; it accomplished this by limiting the ability of tobacco companies to market themselves and by fighting a counter-advertising war against the imagery of smoking. The tobacco industry has been an integral part of the American economy since the inception of the country which is one of the reasons it is so ingrained into its culture. One of the first commercial crops planted in the American colonies was tobacco. Originally, tobacco was supposed to be a temporary crop used as a startup until farmers could plant something else. This was because the price of tobacco was very low and farmers had to produce a lot of the crop in order to make a profit; having a small tobacco farm was impossible.[2] However, the end of the 17th century saw a huge influx of slavery in the American colonies. In conjunction with this, many farmers began to expand their farms into large, sprawling plantations. By increasing the amount of tobacco produced, and decreasing the cost of labor, tobacco became a very profitable crop and remained a staple in the American economy for quite some time. [3] The first introduction of the cigarette appeared among the lower class citizens of Spain and boomed in popularity until it even became prevalent among the British nobility. French soldiers fighting in Spain first picked up smoking “tabaco picado” or minced tobacco wrapped in tobacco. Demand for this new product increased dramatically and thus the American tobacco industry boomed with many farmers expanding their land to meet the higher demands. Eventually, the cigarette found its way into Victorian society where it was no longer seen as a crass, lower-class recreational activity, but rather a refined product due to its labor-intensive production. It especially gained popularity among women which contributes the feminine form to its modern name “cigarette”. With the huge demand for cigarettes in Europe, farmers in the United States began to look for easier ways to produce tobacco and cigarettes especially with the Emancipation Proclamation that banned all slave labor. This resulted in the creation of two machines: one that minced the tobacco, and one that rolled the cigarette which until that point had all been rolled by hand. Now, with demand so high and production costs so low, the American tobacco industry was poised to become an economic powerhouse.[3] During the 20th century, the tobacco industry saw the peak of its prominence due to a highly successful marketing campaign. In the first half of the century, two world wars greatly helped tobacco companies develop their brand as many cigarettes were handed out to the troops with their rations for free. This move by the tobacco companies ingrained cigarette brands into the minds of soldiers by being something that was with them throughout the war as well as initiate the addiction to the cigarettes themselves.[4] Because the tobacco companies gained a significant number of loyal customers, they turned their attention to getting even more people to smoke. With little to no restrictions, tobacco companies launched a wide range of advertising campaigns ranging from television and radio advertisements to print advertisements and product placement in films. Tobacco companies spent millions of dollars and created an entire industry based on marketing and advertising. In these advertisements, they appealed to a plethora of different demographics often using strategies that specifically targeted the area the advertisement was airing be it gender, race, or social class.[5] Such a surgical approach to marketing ensured the tremendous success of tobacco sales during this time period. In general, there were three main avenues that tobacco companies used to push their products: providing satisfaction or a pleasurable sensation, creating associations with desirable outcomes such as independence, social success, or sexual attraction, and ensuring consumers that there were no health risks associated with cigarettes.[5] These ideas were ingrained through repetition of the same images such that consumers would automatically associate cigarettes with these positive connotations and to ignore the findings that smoking was bad for their health. For example, a common ad during this time period was the use of endorsements by doctors. Slogans such as “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” served to assuage public fears of the health risks associated with cigarettes. Other advertisements focused on other subjects, one Tipalet advertisement shows an image of a smoking man and an attractive women with the tagline “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere” which obviously is meant to appeal to male sexuality suggesting that smoking Tipalet will make one more desirable.[6] These appeals to basic human desires is an effective way to garner attention, but the most important aspect of the entire cigarette marketing campaign was repetition. Cigarette advertisements were ubiquitous during this time period. Even if the first ad did not convince an individual, the repetition made people subconsciously agree with the slogans which makes them more susceptible to either start smoking or continue to smoke despite the health warnings. By the end of 20th century, the United States was able to significantly reduce the prevalence of smoking by restricting tobacco companies’ presence in the media as well as amp up the number of anti- tobacco programs and advertising campaigns. In 1964, a landmark publication by the United States Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking Health documented the many deleterious effects of smoking on the human body. In the report, it was found that smoking was correlated with shorter life spans, as well as higher chances of developing lung cancer, heart disease, and bronchitis. It also documented the correlation of pregnant women who smoked and underweight babies.[7] This report was one of the most influential factors on the start of the anti-smoking movement. The effects of this document were felt immediately. Millions of Americans quit smoking entirely soon after the report was published. In 1965 the first piece of legislations that directly targeted tobacco companies was passed: the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1966. This act required all tobacco companies to conspicuously place health warnings on all of their products. In 1969, a second piece of legislation was passed, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which required tobacco companies to place a stronger warning on all of their products specifically citing the surgeon general. The act also banned all tobacco advertisements from being aired on television which ended all direct advertising of cigarettes.[8] However, a later study by the Federal Trade Commission found that these restrictions had little to no effect on the public.[9] Thus, in 1984 Congress passed an even stronger piece of legislation that required four different health warnings to be rotated every three months documenting the exact health risks of smoking cigarettes. [8] The main goal of the United States anti-tobacco policies of the late 1900s was to reduce the number of people who were exposed to tobacco products so that public health risks could be reduced. This was accomplished through the restriction of tobacco advertising and positive media portrayals of tobacco products as well as the promotion of anti-tobacco sentiment through showing scientific evidence of the health hazards of smoking and creating a social stigma around smokers. There were many reasons why the government wanted to initiate an anti-tobacco program. The first and most obvious one is that smoking is a serious public health risk. At the height of their popularity, nearly half of all American adults were consistent smokers.[10] With so many people smoking, not only would they in the future cost the government millions of dollars in health care, but even people who do not smoke would be affected by second hand smoke also causing numerous health problems. Other issues the government wanted to address was the misleading nature of tobacco advertisements especially with regards to the youth demographic. The tobacco companies often targeted youth because their psychological need to be popular and accepted by their peers makes them very susceptible to the positive imagery of social success associated with smoking. Therefore, the government began a campaign that eventually completely removed tobacco advertisements from the most popular forms of media. The Federal Trade Commission spearheaded different programs that sought to limit the presence of tobacco in mass media as well as inform consumers about all of the dangers associated with smoking. The Federal Trade Commission was created in 1914 in order to prevent the prevalence of trusts and cartels that monopolized certain markets. Eventually, its role expanded to a more general mission statement of protecting consumers from unfair business practices.[12] It is this government bureau that first responded to the 1964 Surgeon General Report. It announced several new requirements including placing health warnings on all of their products as well as their advertisements. [11] However, as a federal government agency, the department fell below Congress in the hierarchy of power. The tobacco companies immediately lobbied Congress to remove the restrictions that were placed on them. However, they were also being pressured by health organizations that wanted to inform the public about the health hazards of smoking. Congress decided to compromise and signed the Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1966. This piece of legislation required tobacco companies to put the warning “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous To Your Health” on all cigarette boxes. However, it also stated that the FTC could not impose any other restrictions on the tobacco companies for a period of time. This pattern was repeated when the restrictions of the FTC were lifted in 1969, the FTC wanted to impose stronger warning labels specifically citing cancer and even death. Once again, Congress compromised by making the warning label state “Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health” but still did not require advertisements to display this warning. It did, however, ban television advertisements for tobacco products. It also created another grace period for tobacco companies where the FTC could not impose any restrictions. And, so while restrictions were placed on tobacco companies, equal restrictions were placed on the FTC which halted its influence for some time.[11] This pattern continued well into the 21st century where the FTC’s suggestions were heavily reduced by Congress as a result of the political and economic influence of tobacco companies. The FTC continued to pressure tobacco companies by increasing the intensity of warning labels and continuing to restrict its avenues of advertisement. In 1981, the FTC published a report on the effectiveness of the warning labels and found that people had already grew accustomed to the labels and thus had little impact anymore. This prompted Congress to pass the Comprehensive Smoking Education Act which required four different warnings to be cycled every three months which detailed the exact health complications that could arise from smoking as well as describing some dangerous chemicals found in cigarettes all with a Surgeon General warning. Specifically it required the following four messages: 1. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, and May Complicate Pregnancy. 2. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. 3. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking by Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, and Low Birth Weight. 4. SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.[13] However, despite the FTC’s recommendation to make the warning label much bigger, Congress did not include that in their restrictions, and once again prevented the FTC from making any additional restrictions for some time.[11] It was not until 1998 with the Master Settlement Agreement, that the government began to seriously attack tobacco companies. With this agreement, tobacco companies would have to pay a part of tobacco-related health care costs. There were also significant limitations placed on advertising such as the replacing of billboards with anti-smoking messages and the prevention of specifically youth-targeted advertisements.[14] Most recently, in 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention Act was put in place which transferred the power to regulate tobacco companies to the Food and Drug Administration. It also severely the remaining avenues of advertisements that tobacco companies had such as sponsorships. It even placed restrictions on the design of cigarette boxes. The tobacco industry rose to power through its brilliant use of marketing using mass media, but by restricting access to those forms of media, its pervasiveness has been crippled and its influence steadily declining. The success of the government policies restricting the marketing capabilities of tobacco companies was evaluated at several different time points showing varying degrees of success. Banning tobacco companies from advertising is obviously beneficial towards reducing the number of smokers. Other restrictions such as the warning labels have much less definite results. The first implementation of the health warning labels saw a dramatic decrease in the number of people who smoked. The study conducted by the Federal Trade Commission in 1981 showed that the public was still largely unaware of the specific health impacts of smoking with many people simply glossing over the warning label found on cigarette packages or ignoring it altogether. The study took polls of people and showed that most Americans understood that smoking was bad for their health, but 30% of people was not aware that smoking could cause heart disease, 20% of people polled were not aware of the correlation between smoking and cancer, and 50% of women were not aware that smoking while pregnant could have serious repercussions on their child.[11] Thus, the FTC concluded that remedial action needed to be taken and suggested several solutions to the problem: Of the options explored, staff believes the following are likely to be most effective: (a) additional funding for expanded educational efforts, such as public service announcements; (b) changing the shape and increasing the size of the of the current warning; and (c) replacing the current warning with a system of short, specific rotational warnings.[9] All of these warnings were consistent with the original policy the FTC wanted to implement, but political action prevented it from happening. However, the FTC continued to push for more and more restrictions backed by a plethora of scientific studies, and this is what prompted Congress to require warning labels not to just say that it is dangerous to one’s health but specifically mention cancer, heart disease, and miscarriage as possible consequences of smoking. Independent studies were also conducted on the effectiveness of warning labels; many studies conducted in the 1990s showed that government mandated warning labels were still largely ineffective. One study used sophisticated eye-tracking technology and showed that 44% of adolescents asked to view cigarette advertisements did not ever look at the warning.[11] Some studies showed that the warning labels needed to be larger and more prominent in order to have any effect. A study conducted by the Canadian government in 2000 showed that by increasing the size of the warning from 25% of the package to 50%, the number of people who actively viewed the label had risen to 90%.[11] Other studies concluded that warning labels were ineffective without the existence of substitute products.[11] The closest substitutes today are nicotine gum and nicotine patches as well as electronic cigarettes, but the health effects of using these products have not been fully explored. While the impact of warning labels is contested, this, the fact that the number of people who smoke has dramatically decreased indicates that anti-tobacco policy is headed in the right direction. Even as the tobacco companies have begun to decline in the United States, the restrictions placed on them has created some negative externalities that are difficult to address. The first and most obvious impact is on the economy of the United States. The tobacco industry is a very significant portion of the GDP of the United States, Thus, any losses incurred by them directly translates into decreases in tax revenue. In addition, cigarettes are one of the most highly taxed goods which generates a lot of money for state governments which again leads to decreases in tax revenue.[15] However, these are only the immediate impacts of decreases in tobacco consumption. The long term benefits will far outweigh the decreased tax revenue. According to the CDC, the annual cost of smokers amounts to nearly 300 million dollars. Of that 300 million, 170 million go towards health care for people suffering from tobacco related illnesses. Another 156 million is estimated to be lost due to decreases in productivity as a result of tobacco related illnesses and premature deaths.[16] The economic impact of reducing smoking in the United States may seem like a negative side-effect, but in the long run it will greatly benefit. An actual negative externality of all the restrictions the United States government places on tobacco companies is that they will simply move to another country where the restrictions are much looser. While smoking has been on the decline in the United States, it has not lost any popularity in other countries especially more impoverished ones. China is now the world’s largest consumer and producer of cigarettes with an estimated 350 million consistent smokers. It also produces 42% of the cigarettes sold throughout the world.[17] In India, there are approximately 120 million smokers.[18] In Greece, the percentage of smokers is 42.4%.[19] While these countries have anti-smoking policies, they are not as aggressive as the ones in the United States and are not enforced as consistently. Thus, even as tobacco sales continue to decline in the United States, internationally sales of tobacco render these loses negligible. In order to combat the effectiveness of the tobacco company advertisement industry, the United States government along with many other private institutions decided to combat smoking using the same methods as the tobacco companies. By citing the Fairness Doctrine, the United States Federal Communications Commission decided that anti-smoking ads should get just as much time as pro- smoking ads and thus anti-smoking advertisements were broadcasted.[11] The first advertisements were sponsored by the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Association. These advertisements were broadcasted during primetime and were paid for by the government so they reached a very broad audience and were very effective. They often the same types of advertisements as the tobacco companies even going so far as to make parody advertisements. They also made extensive use of celebrity endorsements. In 1968, Bill Talman, a famous actor, recorded the first celebrity anti- smoking ad six weeks before he died of tobacco related lung cancer. [20] The main theme consistent for all anti-tobacco advertisements were stated in a report published by the National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control & Population Sciences. Public-health-sponsored antitobacco advertising has included themes such as the health risks of smoking, exposure to secondhand smoke, questioning the accuracy of tobacco industry communications, and the declining social acceptability of smoking. Other forms of smoking- relevant advertising include advertisements for commercial smoking cessation products as well as the tobacco industry’s youth smoking prevention and adult cessation programs. [5] These government subsidized advertisements made a discernable impact on the number of smokers who quit. However, the FCC later removed the Fairness Doctrine which forced anti-tobacco organizations to have to pay to broadcast their ads greatly reducing the influence of anti-tobacco counter advertising for some time until the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998 provided both state and the federal government with the financial means to pursue an influential advertising campaign.[11] The Master Settlement Agreement was a settlement agreement between the government and tobacco companies where the tobacco companies were not made liable for the numerous lawsuits associated with smoking but in exchange, they would have substantial restrictions placed on them as well as having to pay approximately 10 billion dollars annually for the indefinite future for the purpose of funding anti- smoking programs.[15] States have also begun to increase taxes on tobacco products to implement paid advertising for anti-tobacco messages. Modern efforts at combating the positive imagery associated with smoking is to provide increasingly graphic depictions of the consequences of smoking. In 2009, President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act which places tobacco regulation under the Food and Drug Administration along with a new series of warnings and label packages. It also forced the tobacco companies to give a full list of all the ingredients used in cigarette production. [12] A few years after this. The CDC, a sister agency to the FDA, launched its first ever paid national advertisement campaign in March 2012 called “Tips From Former Smokers”. The goal of the program is to increase the intensity of anti-tobacco advertisements that people had become desensitized to. Its commercials show very graphic depictions of smokers who have debilitating diseases.[22] A common image in anti-smoking advertisements is the stoma or hole left by a tracheoesophageal puncture during a laryngectomy, a procedure for removing the larynx due to cancer. The entire larynx and sometime part of the esophagus is removed and the patients are no longer able to speak without a prosthetic voice box. In one video, it depicts an elderly woman with early onset macular degeneration which causes blurry or no vision in the central field. There is no treatment for macular degeneration, but there are many treatment options one of which is monthly injections of Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (anti-VEGF). The video shows one such procedure where the surgeon sticks a large needle directly into the woman’s eye and shows every image of it. These videos provide a very powerful deterrent against smoking because not only is it evoking emotional responses through interviews and ethos, but it also evokes a sense of disgust and actually seeing what smokers have to go through. It affects both smokers and non-smokers equally because non-smokers may know someone who smokes and would be willing to seriously talk with them about quitting. The packages of cigarettes are now required to show these new graphic images in addition to the other more tame ones such as the picture of a smoker’s lung or of smokers hooked up to oxygen masks making the message even more accessible. A one year evaluation study of the program shows that 1.6 million smokers made an attempt to quit smoking and 100,000 of those individuals are expected to quit for good. It also prompted 6 million non-smokers to speak with someone about the dangers of smoking.[23] This shows that escalation of anti-tobacco messages over time is a necessity if the counter advertising campaign is to remain relevant over a longer period of time. While the CDC is using an enhanced version of traditional anti-tobacco advertising, there are many organizations that provide different perspectives on the issue that are proving to be very effective. Among these is the American Legacy Foundation which is responsible for the “truth” campaign which produces television and online content to promote awareness about the practices of the tobacco companies. This program specifically targets teenagers to counter the appeal of cigarettes by exposing the truth behind the false, positive imagery associated with smoking.[24] It has been lauded as one of the most successful anti-smoking programs in the United States winning multiple awards from the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services.[25] It was also one of the only youth-focused anti- smoking organizations that was not sponsored by the tobacco industry until 2014. What sets this program apart from other private and government sponsored anti-tobacco advertisements is that it does not focus on health issues; it instead focuses on showing the ethically questionable methods that tobacco companies used to market their products directly taken from documents released by tobacco companies, and most importantly, it does not ever say directly that you should quit smoking and instead telling its audience to make up their own minds.[26] This is significant in two ways: firstly, this message resonated well with teenage audiences especially due to the rebellious tendencies of this demographic, and secondly, it was one of only a few advertisements that directly targeted tobacco companies as opposed to their products. One of its first and most iconic ads show 1200 teens walking up to a tobacco company building then suddenly collapsing dead with the message “Tobacco kills 1200 people a day, Ever think about taking a day off?”. Other ads such as “Shards o’Glass” and “found.thetruth.com” won Emmy awards in 2005 and 2006. This shows just how well done these advertisements were and the effects of these ads were very obvious. An evaluation study showed that 10 months after the launch of the pilot program in Florida, 75% of teenagers from the ages of 12 to 17 had seen at least one advertisement and subsequent studies showed that this continued to rise for the remainder of the study which lasted about 5 years. Most recently, the American Legacy Foundation has started the #finishit campaign which urges the next generation of youth to be the generation that completely ends smoking. Having many organizations, both private and public, ensures that there will be a multifaceted approach to ending tobacco usage which increases its efficacy.[24] Counter-advertisements have been proven to be very effective in deterring people from smoking. There have been a myriad of evaluation studies conducted on anti-tobacco policies all with differing goals. Some studies are sponsored by tobacco companies usually in an effort to show that anti- tobacco advertising is not cost effective or hurts state economies. Other studies are conducted by the government in order to show what a program has accomplished and a cost-benefit analysis of those programs. Since tobacco companies have very few outlets to advertise, they have to be creative about how to market their product. One way is to fight against anti-tobacco organizations. The American Legacy Foundation had received multiple lawsuits against it because it vilified tobacco companies which was outlawed in a clause from the Master Settlement Agreement. It also owned many organizations that published pro-tobacco research papers and evaluation studies that showed that government anti- tobacco policies are not cost effective.[5] However, those organizations have since been dissolved by the Master Settlement Agreement. In summary, the evaluation of counter-advertisement anti-tobacco programs have shown that these policies can be both influential and cost-effective. The evaluation of anti-tobacco policy seems simple because of the simple goals of the program, but there is a wide range of different evaluations and experiments conducted in order to maximize the effectiveness of these programs. The first evaluations of anti-tobacco programs focused on the overall effect of antismoking messages on the demographic of smokers. The Department of Health and Human Services conducted a study which showed that cigarette consumption rates in the general population were dropping at an increasing rate. Presently, the percentage of smokers in the United States is significantly lower and as such, a different strategy needs to take place in terms of evaluation. A general evaluation of the public no longer provides any new, relevant information. Therefore, a more specific evaluation of different demographics will provide much more information on where tobacco products are much more influential. For example, one study shows that African Americans are somewhat more likely to start smoking and significantly less likely to quit than Caucasians. In the same study it also showed disparages between the rate of smoking cessation for men and women because women started to smoke en mass later than men.[10 Other studies have used socio-economic factors such as education, income, and geography to try to find out which demographic has been least affected by anti-smoking programs. And as expected, more impoverished and less educated populations are less likely to be affected by counter advertising. In high-income communities, a mixture of advertising and education in schools have been shown to be very effective in discouraging youth from smoking, but in a community without access to good education may not even be exposed to anti-smoking messages. A study conducted on the “truth” program showed that youth who lived in lower education zip codes as well as females were much less likely to have awareness of the campaign. [26] Because of these evaluations, there is an understanding that these demographics required more targeted ads so that they can also have the opportunity to be exposed to anti-smoking counter advertisements which have already proved to be effective. Showing that anti-tobacco programs are reducing the number of people who smoke is important, but these programs must be able to operate under a cost-effective budget so that they can remain relevant for a long period of time. Both private and public anti-smoking organizations require money to operate and it is up to the government to allocate funding. Therefore, it is important to be able to accurately evaluate which programs are the most effective while costing the least. Most anti- smoking programs have had these kinds of evaluation studies done comparing how much money the campaign spends with respect to the benefits of having people quit smoking. The costs of these programs are known, producing advertisements, buying up ad space, and paying for day-to-day operations are all a part of the costs associated with these programs. In 2009, the government had already invested 324 million dollars into the “truth” program.[27] The “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign by the CDC has costed 48 million dollars.[22] Obviously there is no exact price for lives saved so it is difficult to quantitatively calculate the benefits of these programs. The CDC set the benchmark for a cost-effective public health policy at $50,000 per year of life saved.[22] An evaluation study of the Tips program showed that the CDC spent $393 per year of life saved.[22] Other studies turn to things that can be somewhat quantified such as projected costs of health care and loss of productivity. An evaluation of the “truth” campaign showed that even using conservative methods, the program saved somewhere between 1.9 and 5.4 billion dollars.[27] While that range is very large due to estimations, even the lowest end is much higher than the cost of the program. Evaluation studies that focus on economic impact of anti-tobacco programs provide another way to buttress the legitimacy of a specific policy as well as show which policies require reformation or removal. The anti-tobacco movement has been largely deemed successful due to the severe reduction in the number of smokers in the United States, however, there are still issues that stem from the implementation of this program. The definitive obstacle of anti-tobacco policy is the politicization of the issue and the influence of money in American Politics. The reason why the United States government was so slow in implementing anti-tobacco policies is because of the power of the tobacco lobbyists and the desire for higher tax revenues. Prior to the Surgeon General’s Report there were many studies that showed that cigarettes were detrimental to health that the government simply ignored because it hadn’t become an important issue. Once the report was published, the FTC wanted to immediately place restrictions on the tobacco industry, but instead Congress reduced the severity of those restrictions and barred the FTC from doing anything for a couple of years. This was a pattern that was repeated throughout the century with government organizations such as the FTC and the FCC wanting to place harsher restrictions on the tobacco companies and Congress compromising because of the economic and political impact of the tobacco industry. This is still seen today both in the United States and in other countries. Despite taking decades of intense fire, the tobacco industry is still going strong in the United States with an estimated 40 million Americans still regular smokers.[1] It also should be mentioned that there are very few anti-tobacco organizations that are not at least partially sponsored by tobacco companies which seems counter intuitive, but in reality is a way for them to subtlety advertise. While the message of “you choose” in the “truth” campaign was executed well, other similar programs heavily sponsored by tobacco companies used similar messages which really promoted tobacco products rather than attack them. In countries such as China where the tobacco industry is even more influential, the most recent draft of the anti-tobacco policy is very weak still allowing cigarette ads to appear in certain places and allowing all buildings to have designated smoke rooms even hospitals.[28] The impact of the tobacco industry is obvious and it is not an issue that is easily combated because some of the arguments it has is actually true such as the economic impact of dismantling huge, international corporations. The lessons taken from the United States’ tobacco control policies are very important because it is one of the most successful tobacco control programs in the world short of banning cigarettes all together; this makes it very important when other governments try to apply their own tobacco control policies. Obviously, a direct copy of the United States program is not the best policy. What made the policy work in the United States was that different organizations identified the key aspect of the tobacco industry that made it so popular and was able to combat it in the most effective way. In Europe, the smoking rate is at 29% which is 10% higher than in the United States.[29] Some countries such as Germany have been somewhat resistant to the policies mainly because a similar anti-tobacco movement was implemented during the Nazi regime. In some countries such as Greece, there have been multiple attempts at implementing a smoking ban, but they have been largely ineffective because these laws are simply ignored. Many European countries are also learning from the United States and have targeted advertisements that combat the imagery and social norms of smoking. However, instead of focusing on how tobacco will affect an individual negatively, it promotes concepts that appeal to vanity similar to the ones used originally by tobacco companies. It spreads messages of how good you will look once you quit. France, a country stereotypically associated with smoking, has some of the toughest anti-smoking laws banning smoking from all public places and imposing heavy fines on those who break the law and even higher fines on law enforcement that turn a blind eye to smokers.[29] Each country is attempting to combat smoking in its own way. Those that are successful should continue the path they are on but those that aren’t such as in Greece, should look to successful policies and find out where theirs falls short. Another important takeaway from the success of anti-tobacco policy is how the government can handle other public health issues. In the United States, there are many health related problems that stem from products sold. An example of an industry that has had a massively detrimental effect on Americans is the food industry. With the obesity epidemic in the United States, the government has put up a lackluster effort in combatting the spread of highly delicious, but unhealthy foods. It shares many of the same characteristics as the tobacco industry. It is highly prevalent in the media and online. Advertisements for fast food and sugary drinks take advantage of the biology effects associated with eating such as displaying high resolution images of meat sizzling and drinks fizzing all of which compels the brain to send signals to the stomach to trigger hunger whether it is actually true or not.[30] It also provides a very addictive substance to people so that once they start it is difficult for them to quit. There are some programs such as the food pyramid program by the United States Department of Agriculture which has recently been rebranded to the “Choose My Plate” program, but these are not very influential. It parallels the early tobacco advertisements which informed people of the dangers of smoking, but didn’t really do anything to specifically encourage cessation. The government also has other programs such as the “Lets Move” program dedicated to promoting health in younger children. One of the things it has been trying to promote is a new labeling system that displays information relevant to one’s health. The government has also implemented the “Play60” movement which features football players encouraging children to exercise for at least 60 minutes a day. All of these programs can draw parallels to anti-smoking messages with changes labeling and celebrity endorsements. However, all of these programs are indicative of early attempts at anti-tobacco programs when they were still early and untested. The government should take the lessons learned from tobacco programs and use them more effectively. For example, one way is to follow the “truth” program and really display all of the chemicals and health hazards that are put into processed foods. It could run advertising campaigns showing a coronary bypass surgery or a diabetes patient who had to get a foot amputated. It could impose restrictions on how food is advertised. The government should implement a much more effective health policy by basing it on previous knowledge. The United States was able to transition between a society where smoking was nearly ubiquitous to one where the practice is openly criticized in just a couple of decades. As anti-tobacco policy evolves and affect more people, it is important to evaluate the implementation of those programs so that there is a comprehensive understanding of what works and what didn’t. By knowing what made these programs so successful, it may be possible that those concepts may be transferable to other aspects not only in public health, but also in other areas such as economic and social policy while also avoiding the pitfalls made by previous organizations. This will create a much more efficient method of implementing public policy and improve the lives of millions of citizens.

...(download the rest of the essay above)

About this essay:

If you use part of this page in your own work, you need to provide a citation, as follows:

Essay Sauce, The Tobacco industry . Available from:<https://www.essaysauce.com/health-essays/the-tobacco-industry/> [Accessed 25-05-24].

These Health essays have been submitted to us by students in order to help you with your studies.

* This essay may have been previously published on Essay.uk.com at an earlier date.

Call to +1 844 889-9952

Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms

Since the date of its formation, tobacco industry appears to be one of the most successful and profitable industries. Every year, more than 5 000 000 000 000 cigarettes are produced in the world. Around 300 billion US dollars are earned by the companies in the industry. In the following paper, the current situation in this business area will be examined.

The products provided

The products provided by the industry are cigarettes, smokeballs, snuffing tobacco and the other related goods.

Top five firms in the industry

Top five firms in the industry are China National Tobacco Co., Philip Morris International Inc (Altria Group Inc), British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Group.

China National Tobacco Co

China National Tobacco Co. is the monopolist in the industry. More than 33 % of world tobacco products are manufactured by this company ( China National Statistics Bureau Yearbook 2010 ). The company is owned by the government of China, and is located in the city of Beijing which is one of the biggest industrial cities both in the world and in the country. The company’s value of sales is around 32 billion US dollars ( China National Statistics Bureau Yearbook 2010 ). Around 500 thousands of people are employed in this company which comprises 0.4 % of total employment in China ( China National Statistics Bureau Yearbook 2010 ). The amount of capital invested is approximately 4.18 billion US dollars ( China National Statistics Bureau Yearbook 2010 ).

Philip Morris International Inc (Altria Group Inc)

Philip Morris International Inc (Altria Group Inc) is the second largest company in the industry. It is located in New York City, USA. The company holds 17.6% of global market (Masina 2010). Its revenue is 89.8 billion US dollars annually. The number of people employed is 200 thousand. The amount of capital invested is 2.7 billion US dollars (Masina 2010).

British American Tobacco

British American Tobacco located in London is the third largest company in the industry with the annual value of sales of 43.0 billion US dollars which comprises 15.1% of the world’s market. The number of people employed is 100 thousand. The amount of capital invested is 2.2 billion US dollars.

Japan Tobacco International

Japan Tobacco International located in Geneva, Switzerland is the fourth largest company in the industry occupying 6.4% of the global market. Each year, the value of sales reaches 39.6 billion US dollars (Masina 2010). The number of people employed is 60 thousand. The amount of the capital invested is 1.4 billion US dollars (Masina 2010).

Imperial Tobacco Group

Imperial Tobacco Group located in Bristol, England is the fifth largest company in the industry with the annual value of sales of 25.2 billion US dollars (Masina 2010). The company holds 3.7 % of global market. The number of personnel employed is 25 thousand people. The amount of invested capital is 1.1 billion US dollars (Masina 2010).

The problems in the industry

The problems in the industry are not many as its products are in constant demand by the population of the entire world. However, the industry still has its major problem coming from the organizations promoting healthy lifestyle such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Organization.

Changes in government controls

With the development of medicine in the twentieth century, the issue of prohibiting the production of cigarettes appeared to be burning (Lee 1998). However, it was quite clear that it could be hardly possible to make people reject their favourite habit. Despite this fact, world governments made numerous efforts to implement strategies reducing the use of tobacco among their citizens. Nowadays, the situation with governmental policies directed to reduction of smoking and the functioning of the tobacco industry appears to be rather problematic as well. The policies developed by the government’s aim to lessen the advertising time for cigarette manufactures, to prohibit smoking in public place along with selling cigarettes to the individuals who are under eighteen. In addition, the manufacturers of cigarettes are obliged to warn their customers about the potential dangers to their health which are caused by smoking. All of this definitely leaves its trace on the industry’s functioning.

Yet another and the most critical problem for the industry is caused by governmental control is in the law demanding to raise the prices for the tobacco products. In addition, the taxes implemented to the manufactures of tobacco products are also very high. As a result, customers are not able to buy the industry’s products as actively as they did before. This is the most significant problem which occurred in the industry during the last decades.

The Strategies of Firms in the Industry Purposed for Solving the Emerged Problems

The world tobacco manufactures understand the peculiarity of their business including the harm they cause to people’s health. They do acknowledge that their productions are harmful for the environment. On this reason, their efforts are directed to minimizing harm which is caused by their business. In particular, they try to apply new production methods in order to minimize harmful emissions into the environment. They also relocate their productions into the remote areas. These companies combine their efforts in banning cigarettes sales for young people. One more area in which the companies of the industry work is technological progress purposed for producing cigarettes less harmful for people’s health. Breed (2012, par. 78) states:

The creation of new filtered cigarette brands was seen by the industry as the optimal solution. In the rushed attempt to find newer and better filters the industry even utilized asbestos in the Kent micronite filter. Additionally, it seems that some of the flavoring additives currently placed in low tar cigarettes may be harmful.

Conducting their negotiations with the governments, they emphasise their role in employing people which is their strong argument in the dialogue. They also strive to popularise their business by sponsorship. Tobacco companies are often reported to be the major sponsors of a variety of sport events along with the campaigns aimed to provide help for people from poor countries.

However, not all of the strategies by the tobacco companies are honest and fair. Particularly, ‘massive scale and scope of this industry effort illustrate how corporate interests, when threatened by global public health initiatives, sidestep competitive concerns in order to coordinate their activities’ (McDanel, P, Intinarelli, G & Malone, R 2012, par. 45). According to Breed (2012, par. 3),

The tobacco industries have offered millions of dollars to research personnel exploring various issues. The specified range of topics for these studies is interesting: genetic differences between smokers and non-smokers, personality traits of smokers, immunologic factor in cancer, general studies on heart diseases, lung defense mechanisms and on smoking and other behavioral factors in heart diseases. This list of topics is vague and incomplete, but does illustrate several foci of their interest…Much of this research could lead to conclusions removing tobacco from the focus of public and legislative activity.

Thus, the tobacco companies resort to the use of a variety of unfair practices in order to secure high levels of their profitableness. Among the other unfair practices are advertisements on TV showing smokers as happy and healthy people. The representatives of the tobacco companies put a lot of efforts in order to have indirect advertizing in popular TV series, movies and shows.

The prospective of the industry

With regards to the prospective of the industry, it seems that it will continue to be profitable and utterly successful despite the efforts of the organizations striving to promote healthy way of life without smoking. It is true that some success was achieved by the representatives of such organizations especially after the1980s (Lee 1998). A number of people will definitely respond to the efforts of such organizations as WHO rejecting smoking. However, the majority of people are accustomed to connive to their desires even if they are connected to unhealthy practices (Bardsley, & Olekalns1999). According to Lee (1998, p. 17), ‘despite the claims of organizations that receive funding from tobacco tax revenues, punishing and preaching have not been, and are unlikely to be, significant factors influencing smoking rates, especially among teens’. Thus, the conclusion can be made that the tobacco industry will continue to thrive despite the efforts of world governments directed to popularizing healthy way of living.

In conclusion, the situation in the tobacco industry appears to be stable and efficient for successful profit making. Despite some significant difficulties caused by the efforts of the organizations promoting healthy way of living for the industry, the development in this sector of market will continue to be steady. This is explained by the customers’ conduct was they are determined to buy the products of the industry under any conditions. Even the implementation of new tax strategies along with obliging the cigarette manufactures to constantly raise the prices for their products do not present significant difficulties for the industry. The giants of tobacco industry including China National Tobacco Co., Philip Morris International Inc (Altria Group Inc), British American Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International and Imperial Tobacco Group report about steady profit making along with the constant growth in a number of their sales sectors.

Bardsley, P, & Olekalns, N 1999. ‘Cigarette and Tobacco Consumption: Have Anti-Smoking Policies Made a Difference?’, Economic Record, vol. 75 no. 23, pp.225-228.

Breed, L 2012, Strategies of the Tobacco Industry, Web.

China National Statistics Bureau Yearbook 2010, Statistics Press, Beijing: China.

Lee, D 1998, ‘The Government’s Crusade against Tobacco: Can It Ultimately Succeed?’, USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education) , pp. 16-78.

Masina, L. 2010. ‘Boom Time for Tobacco Sales?’, The World Health Organization Annual Report, pp. 56-89.

McDanel, P, Intinarelli, G & Malone, R 2012, Tobacco industry issues management organizations: Creating a global corporate network to undermine public health, Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

BusinessEssay. (2022, December 15). Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms. https://business-essay.com/tobacco-industry-products-and-firms/

"Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms." BusinessEssay , 15 Dec. 2022, business-essay.com/tobacco-industry-products-and-firms/.

BusinessEssay . (2022) 'Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms'. 15 December.

BusinessEssay . 2022. "Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms." December 15, 2022. https://business-essay.com/tobacco-industry-products-and-firms/.

1. BusinessEssay . "Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms." December 15, 2022. https://business-essay.com/tobacco-industry-products-and-firms/.

Bibliography

BusinessEssay . "Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms." December 15, 2022. https://business-essay.com/tobacco-industry-products-and-firms/.

Causes for the Decline in Disney’s Income
Impact of using EVs in Dubai
Food Industry: McDonald’s Company
Critical Strategic Analysis of VW Group
3M Canada: Industrial Business Division
Changing Footwear Industry: Impact of Online Shopping
Pay Pal Wars Economic Review
Competitive Advantage in Farming, Car and Restaurant Industries
Leaders in Jewelry Business: Thomas Sabo
Indigenous Publishing Market Profile of Bahrain

Environment
Information Science
Social Issues
Argumentative
Cause and Effect
Classification
Compare and Contrast
Descriptive
Exemplification
Informative
Controversial
Exploratory
What Is an Essay
Length of an Essay
Generate Ideas
Types of Essays
Structuring an Essay
Outline For Essay
Essay Introduction
Thesis Statement
Body of an Essay
Writing a Conclusion
Essay Writing Tips
Drafting an Essay
Revision Process
Fix a Broken Essay
Format of an Essay
Essay Examples
Essay Checklist
Essay Writing Service
Pay for Research Paper
Write My Research Paper
Write My Essay
Custom Essay Writing Service
Admission Essay Writing Service
Pay for Essay
Academic Ghostwriting
Write My Book Report
Case Study Writing Service
Dissertation Writing Service
Coursework Writing Service
Lab Report Writing Service
Do My Assignment
Buy College Papers
Capstone Project Writing Service
Buy Research Paper
Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

Free Essay Samples
Corporations

Tobacco Industry

Updated 04 September 2023

Subject Corporations

Downloads 46

Category Business

Not all industries are viewed equally by the public regarding their effects on their livelihood. The tobacco industry is an example of an industry which causes an uproar in the population about the production of addictive products making it people leave them. The community views tobacco industry as a menace but on the other hand, personal responsibility sets in where the person has a choice not to consume the product or not. Tobacco industry entices people to use the product, but standards have been set with regards to the use, advertising or sale of tobacco-based products.

People have the right to choose. Therefore, they are responsible for their own decisions. The problem however with the tobacco industries is their target to the young generation with enticing advertisements even though they are aware of the dangers of the product. The consumers are also knowledgeable enough but downplay the harmful effects of the products but continue consuming it (cdc.gov, 2018). The marketing strategies of tobacco industries are one of the best in the marketing industry as they are strategized to play with human mind weak psychology making it hard to resist the product. The sector hides the truth from the consumers with the aim of making money without caring on who gets hurt from their products like to their related illnesses.

Role of Capitalism in Corporate Decision-making

Capitalism is one of the critical drivers in the tobacco industry. The industry makes a lot of profit annually, but these profits come with harming their clients’ health, causing the government incurs costs related to tobacco use and short life spans. Tobacco is one of the most abundant cash crops in the world, mostly, the third world countries lead by the British American Tobacco who have invested in the industry for a very long time. However, the industry pays enormous amounts of taxes to governments, making its ban a big challenge. Banning the production will cost the government which requires the funding for its operations.

If a company can cater to both its best interest and that of the consumer conjointly or if one always has to prevail.

In the 1970s, studies showed that tobacco consumption could cause lung cancer. Therefore, it not ideal for the tobacco industry to care about their consumers since what they need is to hook the customer to the product, and they will continue consuming it. The problem is the effect of passive smoking for those who do not consume the product as they are affected as well by the product indirectly. Many legal battles have been carried out about the effects of tobacco consumption, as the industry fight to hide the truth about tobacco consumption. Thus, the growth of the industry depends on the ability of the consumer to be ignorant about the dangers of the product.

The industry took a step further to write the dangers of tobacco on its packaging materials as a move to reduce potential smokers but does not prevent anyone from consuming the product. Besides from that, the advertisements pushed by the industry players design them strategically to hide the truth. It is therefore evident that the consumers are responsible for their action towards the product. However, players in the industry hide the fact which might have changed the decisions of the consumers, thus consumers should play a key role in sharing the dangers of the product. World Health Organisation (WHO) banned the advertising of tobacco and its sponsorship, and there was a 7% reduction in smoking, which showed the influence of tobacco advertisements (WHO, 2013). Additionally, the industry commands vast amounts of money. Therefore, consumers must be protected.

Therefore, many regulations have been put in place to protect the public from the effects of tobacco, but the company does not have consumer protection as their top priority. The industry has, therefore, turned to a health hazard and one oh most regulated industry in the world.

cdc.gov. (2018, February 8). Health Effects. Retrieved from cdc.gov: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/health_effects/index.htm

WHO. (2013, May 29). Ban tobacco advertising to protect young people. Retrieved from who.in: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/who_ban_tobacco/en/

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

WHO / WORLD TOBACCO DAY

You need to first accept the terms and conditions before download.

Subject to the Terms of usage of UNifeed , UNifeed materials are available free of charge for news purposes only. UNifeed materials may not be sold or redistributed to third parties without the prior written consent of the UN or the UN entity which is source of the UNifeed material. All users of UNifeed materials must provide due credit to the United Nations or any UN entity source(s) in their use and broadcast of UNifeed materials.

STORY: WHO / WORLD TOBACCO DAY TRT: 01:54 SOURCE: WHO RESTRICTIONS: PLEASE CREDIT WHO ON SCREEN LANGUAGE: ENGLISH / NATS

DATELINE: 23 MAY 2024, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND / FILE

FILE - GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

1. Tracking shot, exterior WHO Headquarters

23 MAY 2024, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “Today together with STOP and other partners, WHO launches the report Hooking the Next Generation. And we're highlighting the dreadful tactics of the tobacco industry, how they hook our children to nicotine.”

3. Tracking shot, exterior WHO Headquarters

4. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “So, the tobacco industry actually has some outrageous tactics.”

5. Tilt up, exterior WHO Headquarters

6. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “They're giving free samples to kids at sports events and concerts. They're paying social media influencers. They're paying ads and product placements with streaming services, and they have partnerships with food delivery services so that you can get your e-cigarettes through the app right at your door.”

7. Tilt down, exterior WHO Headquarters

8. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “So, what is WHO doing about this? We are calling on all governments to regulate or ban e-cigarettes and novel products. See, there's 16,000 flavours: bubble gum, vanilla ice cream, cookies, all aimed for children. We are calling on governments to ban all these flavours.”

9. Wide shot, exterior WHO Headquarters

10. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “This year's World No Tobacco Day is focusing on children and young people.”

11. Tracking shot, exterior WHO Headquarters

2. SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “They are calling unanimously for governments to protect them from tobacco use and from these novel products like e-cigarettes. They are saying you will be remembered whether you have helped us and protected us or not, so adults should listen, and governments should act.”

The World Health Organization (WHO) and STOP, a global tobacco industry watchdog, are launching today (23 May) “Hooking the next generation,” a report highlighting how the tobacco and nicotine industry designs products, implements marketing campaigns and works to shape policy environments to help them addict the world’s youth.

This comes just ahead of World No Tobacco Day marked on 31 May, where WHO is amplifying the voices of young people who are calling on governments to protect them from being targets of the tobacco and nicotine industry.

SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “Today together with STOP and other partners, WHO launches the report Hooking the Next Generation. And we're highlighting the dreadful tactics of the tobacco industry, how they hook our children to nicotine.”

The report shows that globally an estimated 37 million children aged 13–15 years use tobacco, and in many countries, the rate of e-cigarette use among adolescents exceeds that of adults. In the WHO European Region, 20 percent of 15-year-olds surveyed reported using e-cigarettes in the past 30 days.

SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “So, the tobacco industry actually has some outrageous tactics.”

“They're giving free samples to kids at sports events and concerts. They're paying social media influencers. They're paying ads and product placements with streaming services, and they have partnerships with food delivery services so that you can get your e-cigarettes through the app right at your door.”

Despite significant progress in reducing tobacco use, the emergence of e-cigarettes and other new tobacco and nicotine products present a grave threat to youth and tobacco control. Studies demonstrate that e-cigarette use increases conventional cigarette use, particularly among non-smoking youth, by nearly three times.

SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “So, what is WHO doing about this? We are calling on all governments to regulate or ban e-cigarettes and novel products. See, there's 16,000 flavours: bubble gum, vanilla ice cream, cookies, all aimed for children. We are calling on governments to ban all these flavours.”

These industries continue to market their products to young people with enticing flavours like candy and fruit. Research in the United States of America found that more than 70% of youth e-cigarette users would quit if the products were only available in tobacco flavour.

These deceptive tactics highlight the urgent need for strong regulations to protect young people from a lifetime of harmful dependence.

SOUNDBITE (English) Rudiger Krech, Director, Health Promotion, World Health Organization (WHO): “This year's World No Tobacco Day is focusing on children and young people.”

“They are calling unanimously for governments to protect them from tobacco use and from these novel products like e-cigarettes. They are saying you will be remembered whether you have helped us and protected us or not, so adults should listen, and governments should act.”

WHO urges governments to protect young people from the uptake of tobacco, e-cigarettes, and other nicotine products by banning or tightly regulating these products. WHO recommendations include creating 100% smoke-free indoor public places, banning flavoured e-cigarettes, bans on marketing, advertising and promotion, higher taxes, increasing public awareness of the deceptive tactics used by the industry and supporting youth-led education and awareness initiatives.

WHO / WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY

WHO / TOBACCO ILLEGAL TRADE

NY / WHO TOBACCO REPORT

WHO / TOBACCO CONTROL

WHO / GLOBAL TOBACCO USE

GENEVA / WORLD NO TOBACCO DAY

WHO / GLOBAL TOBACCO EPIDEMIC REPORT

Take the Quiz: Find the Best State for You »

What's the best state for you ».

Tobacco Industry Aims to Hook New Generation on Vapes, WHO Says

FILE PHOTO: A woman holds an e-cigarette as she vapes on a street in Manchester, Britain March 6, 2024. REUTERS/Temilade Adelaja

LONDON (Reuters) -Tobacco companies still actively target young people via social media, sports and music festivals and new, flavoured products, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Thursday, accusing companies of trying to hook a new generation on nicotine.

Amid ever-stricter regulation targeting cigarettes, big tobacco companies and new entrants have begun offering smoking alternatives such as vapes, which they say are aimed at adult smokers.

But the WHO and industry watchdog STOP said in a joint report these products are often marketed to youth, their design and fruity flavours appeal to children and young people are more likely to use them than adults in many countries.

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the WHO's director-general, rejected the industry's claim that it is working to reduce the harm from smoking. "It's dishonest to talk about harm reduction when they are marketing to children," he said in the report.

The WHO's increasingly tough stance on newer nicotine products follows a sharp rise in youth vaping across several countries.

The WHO pointed to flavours like bubblegum as one driver of this rise. The industry says flavours are an important tool in encouraging adults to switch away from smoking.

Large tobacco companies have mostly steered away from such flavours. But firms including Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco target youth via the sponsorship of music and sports festivals and the use of social media, the WHO said.

These provide platforms to promote their brands to younger audiences and hand out free samples, it continued.

Both companies said they aimed to move smokers away from cigarettes. BAT added that it follows principles for responsible marketing and ensuring its products were for adults only.

PMI said scientifically substantiated smoking alternatives must be part of sound tobacco policy and it was ready to engage with any government and the WHO on the issue.

The WHO said there is insufficient evidence vapes help people quit smoking. The body said there is evidence that vaping increases traditional cigarette use, especially among youth.

However, Sarah Jackson, principal research fellow at University College London's Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, said these statements "do not accurately reflect current evidence on e-cigarettes".

(Reporting by Emma Rumney; editing by Hugh Lawson, Mark Heinrich and Cynthia Osterman)

Join the Conversation

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

Takeaways From the NCAA’s Settlement

Laura Mannweiler May 24, 2024

Noncitizen Voting: the Fiction and Facts

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 24, 2024

Quiz: Who Said What in Trump’s Trial?

U.S. News Staff May 24, 2024

CDC: COVID-19 Strains Are on the Rise

Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder May 24, 2024

Consumers See Worsening Job Market

Tim Smart May 24, 2024

Biden vs. the Border

Elliott Davis Jr. May 23, 2024

Terms of Services
Privacy Policy
Admission Essay
Annotated Bibliography
Article Critique
Article review
Book Report
Book review
Business Plan
Capstone project
Composition
Creative Writing
Critical thinking
Dissertation
Ghostwriting
Grant Proposal
Literature Review
Movie Review
Personal Statement
Powerpoint Presentation
Quantitative Project
Reaction Paper
Research Paper
Research Proposal
Thesis Statement Checker

Tobacco industry essay

July 22, 2015
Posted by: Sergei
Category: Argumentative and Controversial

Tobacco industry continues to persuade numerous people that smoking is not associated with multiple health risks. For instance, back in 1950s, tobacco industry was faced with the fact that smoking causes lung cancer and various other diseases. In response to such suggestions, tobacco industry started fixing filters to cigarettes promising that this would prevent possible health related problems. There were also taken some other measures to ensure that people still buy cigarettes. However, tobacco production is associated with a number of pros and cons that should be analyzed in detail in order to find out the truth about tobacco industry. Some of the most widely known pros and cons will be discussed further.

Not many people realize that tobacco industry constantly makes efforts to promote its products. Numerous advertising campaigns are carried out in order to make people believe in the good sides of smoking tobacco. However, the question is whether such measures should be taken at the expense of public health. In fact, tobacco industry remains among the most prosperous industries in the world. It continues to sell its products to the target audience who wrongfully believe that smoking of tobacco is cool and beneficial. In reality, tobacco industry does not reveal the actual facts about tobacco. These include serious damage caused by tobacco to the body system of a person, a threat of developing lung cancer and heart diseases and various others. The major drawback of tobacco industry is the fact that it does not reveal the truth about the use of tobacco. It is simply engaged in promoting its products and finding more and more target customers to satisfy their diverse needs.

However, the truth is that tobacco does not do anything good to people who use it on a daily basis. Instead, tobacco is the major cause of heart-related diseases, cancer and various others. Furthermore, it is no pleasure to smoke tobacco day after day as it means consuming deadly smoke, which might cause different diseases and even death. Tobacco industry is trying to persuade people that it is cool and classy to smoke, although in reality smoking means inhaling harmful smoke into one’s lungs causing damage to the entire body system.

From the above perspective, it is hard to find any beneficial sides of tobacco industry, as it stands for killing numerous people who die in sufferings and pain. However, there is still one major benefit of tobacco industry, which is an immense profit gained by this industry for the benefit of the state’s economy. Tobacco industry greatly contributes to the economy of every country. Furthermore, it is also beneficial for the medical field as smokers spend much money on anti-smoking medicines or some other medications for mitigating the symptoms of various diseases caused by the use of tobacco. This equals to millions of dollars gained by the economy of the state, and it is surely a considerable benefit of tobacco industry. The supporters of this opinion claim that tobacco industry is one of the most rapidly developing industries in the world. It does not only produce tobacco in its diverse forms, including cigars and cigarettes, but also produces the means of overcoming nicotine addiction. All this contributes to the economy of the country, not to mention that people spend thousands of dollars on a doubtful pleasure of smoking.

In such a way, tobacco industry remains a controversial issue for discussion, and the debates over the benefits and drawbacks of this industry are likely to continue for many years to come. Even though in recent years various anti-tobacco campaigns have been put into action, there are still millions of people who prefer inhaling dangerous smoke into their lungs instead of living a healthy and happy life without it.

Filter by topic

Biz & IT
Gaming & Culture

Front page layout

manufacturing doubt —

“deny, denounce, delay”: the battle over the risk of ultra-processed foods, big food is trying to dampen fears about the effects of industrially formulated substances..

Madeleine Speed, Ella Hollowood and Sarah Neville, Financial Times - May 25, 2024 11:15 am UTC

A shopping cart by a store shelf in a supermarket

When the Brazilian nutritional scientist Carlos Monteiro coined the term “ultra-processed foods” 15 years ago, he established what he calls a “new paradigm” for assessing the impact of diet on health.

Monteiro had noticed that although Brazilian households were spending less on sugar and oil, obesity rates were going up. The paradox could be explained by increased consumption of food that had undergone high levels of processing, such as the addition of preservatives and flavorings or the removal or addition of nutrients.

But health authorities and food companies resisted the link, Monteiro tells the FT. “[These are] people who spent their whole life thinking that the only link between diet and health is the nutrient content of foods ... Food is more than nutrients.”

Monteiro’s food classification system, “Nova,” assessed not only the nutritional content of foods but also the processes they undergo before reaching our plates. The system laid the groundwork for two decades of scientific research linking the consumption of UPFs to obesity, cancer, and diabetes.

Studies of UPFs show that these processes create food—from snack bars to breakfast cereals to ready meals—that encourages overeating but may leave the eater undernourished. A recipe might, for example, contain a level of carbohydrate and fat that triggers the brain’s reward system, meaning you have to consume more to sustain the pleasure of eating it.

In 2019, American metabolic scientist Kevin Hall carried out a randomized study comparing people who ate an unprocessed diet with those who followed a UPF diet over two weeks. Hall found that the subjects who ate the ultra-processed diet consumed around 500 more calories per day, more fat and carbohydrates, less protein—and gained weight.

The rising concern about the health impact of UPFs has recast the debate around food and public health, giving rise to books, policy campaigns, and academic papers. It also presents the most concrete challenge yet to the business model of the food industry, for whom UPFs are extremely profitable.

The industry has responded with a ferocious campaign against regulation. In part it has used the same lobbying playbook as its fight against labeling and taxation of “junk food” high in calories: big spending to influence policymakers.

FT analysis of US lobbying data from non-profit Open Secrets found that food and soft drinks-related companies spent $106 million on lobbying in 2023, almost twice as much as the tobacco and alcohol industries combined. Last year’s spend was 21 percent higher than in 2020, with the increase driven largely by lobbying relating to food processing as well as sugar.

In an echo of tactics employed by cigarette companies, the food industry has also attempted to stave off regulation by casting doubt on the research of scientists like Monteiro.

“The strategy I see the food industry using is deny, denounce, and delay,” says Barry Smith, director of the Institute of Philosophy at the University of London and a consultant for companies on the multisensory experience of food and drink.

So far the strategy has proved successful. Just a handful of countries, including Belgium, Israel, and Brazil, currently refer to UPFs in their dietary guidelines. But as the weight of evidence about UPFs grows, public health experts say the only question now is how, if at all, it is translated into regulation.

“There’s scientific agreement on the science,” says Jean Adams, professor of dietary public health at the MRC Epidemiology Unit at the University of Cambridge. “It’s how to interpret that to make a policy that people aren’t sure of.”

reader comments

Channel ars technica.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Public Health Rep
v.120(2); Mar-Apr 2005

Tobacco industry manipulation of research.

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (103K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

Stayner L. Protecting public health in the face of uncertain risks: the example of diesel exhaust. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul; 89 (7):991–993. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA. Second hand smoke and risk assessment: what was in it for the tobacco industry? Tob Control. 2001 Dec; 10 (4):375–382. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bialous SA, Yach D. Whose standard is it, anyway? How the tobacco industry determines the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards for tobacco and tobacco products. Tob Control. 2001 Jun; 10 (2):96–104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero Lisa. Implications of the tobacco industry documents for public health and policy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2003; 24 :267–288. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chapman S. Tobacco industry memo reveals passive smoking strategy. BMJ. 1997 May 31; 314 (7094):1569–1569. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Muggli ME, Forster JL, Hurt RD, Repace JL. The smoke you don't see: uncovering tobacco industry scientific strategies aimed against environmental tobacco smoke policies. Am J Public Health. 2001 Sep; 91 (9):1419–1423. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lexchin Joel, Bero Lisa A, Djulbegovic Benjamin, Clark Otavio. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003 May 31; 326 (7400):1167–1170. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnes DE, Bero LA. Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA. 1998 May 20; 279 (19):1566–1570. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnes DE, Bero LA. Scientific quality of original research articles on environmental tobacco smoke. Tob Control. 1997 Spring; 6 (1):19–26. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Malone RE, Bero LA. Chasing the dollar: why scientists should decline tobacco industry funding. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Aug; 57 (8):546–548. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero L, Barnes DE, Hanauer P, Slade J, Glantz SA. Lawyer control of the tobacco industry's external research program. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995 Jul 19; 274 (3):241–247. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hanauer P, Slade J, Barnes DE, Bero L, Glantz SA. Lawyer control of internal scientific research to protect against products liability lawsuits. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995 Jul 19; 274 (3):234–240. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnes DE, Bero LA. Industry-funded research and conflict of interest: an analysis of research sponsored by the tobacco industry through the Center for Indoor Air Research. J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996 Fall; 21 (3):515–542. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hirschhorn N, Bialous SA, Shatenstein S. Philip Morris' new scientific initiative: an analysis. Tob Control. 2001 Sep; 10 (3):247–252. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero LA, Galbraith A, Rennie D. Sponsored symposia on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA. 1994 Feb 23; 271 (8):612–617. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnoya J, Glantz S. Tobacco industry success in preventing regulation of secondhand smoke in Latin America: the "Latin Project". Tob Control. 2002 Dec; 11 (4):305–314. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schotland Marieka S, Bero Lisa A. Evaluating public commentary and scientific evidence submitted in the development of a risk assessment. Risk Anal. 2002 Feb; 22 (1):131–140. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chapman S, Borland R, Hill D, Owen N, Woodward S. Why the tobacco industry fears the passive smoking issue. Int J Health Serv. 1990; 20 (3):417–427. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC. Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13; 272 (2):108–113. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cho MK, Bero LA. The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Mar 1; 124 (5):485–489. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Montini T, Bero LA. Policy makers' perspectives on tobacco control advocates' roles in regulation development. Tob Control. 2001 Sep; 10 (3):218–224. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Montini Theresa, Mangurian Christina, Bero Lisa A. Assessing the evidence submitted in the development of a workplace smoking regulation: the case of Maryland. Public Health Rep. 2002 May-Jun; 117 (3):291–298. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992 Jan 15; 267 (3):374–378. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero LA, Glantz SA, Rennie D. Publication bias and public health policy on environmental tobacco smoke. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13; 272 (2):133–136. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Misakian AL, Bero LA. Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published and unpublished studies. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15; 280 (3):250–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA. 1995 Dec 27; 274 (24):1935–1938. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hong Mi-Kyung, Bero Lisa A. How the tobacco industry responded to an influential study of the health effects of secondhand smoke. BMJ. 2002 Dec 14; 325 (7377):1413–1416. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Slade J, Bero LA, Hanauer P, Barnes DE, Glantz SA. Nicotine and addiction. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995 Jul 19; 274 (3):225–233. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Barnes DE, Hanauer P, Slade J, Bero LA, Glantz SA. Environmental tobacco smoke. The Brown and Williamson documents. JAMA. 1995 Jul 19; 274 (3):248–253. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rennie D. Smoke and letters. JAMA. 1993 Oct 13; 270 (14):1742–1743. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kennedy GE, Bero LA. Print media coverage of research on passive smoking. Tob Control. 1999 Autumn; 8 (3):254–260. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roth Andrew L, Dunsby Joshua, Bero Lisa A. Framing processes in public commentary on US federal tobacco control regulation. Soc Stud Sci. 2003 Feb; 33 (1):7–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero LA, Montini T, Bryan-Jones K, Mangurian C. Science in regulatory policy making: case studies in the development of workplace smoking restrictions. Tob Control. 2001 Dec; 10 (4):329–336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bryan-Jones Katherine, Bero Lisa A. Tobacco industry efforts to defeat the occupational safety and health administration indoor air quality rule. Am J Public Health. 2003 Apr; 93 (4):585–592. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Silbergeld EK. Risk assessment: the perspective and experience of U.S. environmentalists. Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Jun; 101 (2):100–104. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mangurian CV, Bero LA. Lessons learned from the tobacco industry's efforts to prevent the passage of a workplace smoking regulation. Am J Public Health. 2000 Dec; 90 (12):1926–1930. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hirayama T. Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 Jan 17; 282 (6259):183–185. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lee PN. "Marriage to a smoker" may not be a valid marker of exposure in studies relating environmental tobacco smoke to risk of lung cancer in Japanese non-smoking women. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1995; 67 (5):287–294. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bekelman Justin E, Li Yan, Gross Cary P. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003 Jan 22; 289 (4):454–465. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bero LA, Rennie D. Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1996 Spring; 12 (2):209–237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Levine Jane, Gussow Joan Dye, Hastings Diane, Eccher Amy. Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and their published positions on the fat substitute olestra. Am J Public Health. 2003 Apr; 93 (4):664–669. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Markowitz G, Rosner D. "Cater to the children": the role of the lead industry in a public health tragedy, 1900-1955. Am J Public Health. 2000 Jan; 90 (1):36–46. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boyd EA, Bero LA. Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: A case study. JAMA. 2000 Nov 1; 284 (17):2209–2214. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Boyd Elizabeth A, Cho Mildred K, Bero Lisa A. Financial conflict-of-interest policies in clinical research: issues for clinical investigators. Acad Med. 2003 Aug; 78 (8):769–774. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Supported by

Countries Fail to Agree on Treaty to Prepare the World for the Next Pandemic

Negotiators plan to ask for more time. Among the sticking points are equitable access to vaccines and financing to set up surveillance systems.

Share full article

An official walks through an aisle of the World Health Assembly, in a vast room with rows of delegates seated at computers with a giant screen and stage at the front.

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Countries around the globe have failed to reach consensus on the terms of a treaty that would unify the world in a strategy against the inevitable next pandemic, trumping the nationalist ethos that emerged during Covid-19.

The deliberations, which were scheduled to be a central item at the weeklong meeting of the World Health Assembly beginning Monday in Geneva, aimed to correct the inequities in access to vaccines and treatments between wealthier nations and poorer ones that became glaringly apparent during the Covid pandemic.

Although much of the urgency around Covid has faded since the treaty negotiations began two years ago, public health experts are still acutely aware of the pandemic potential of emerging pathogens, familiar threats like bird flu and mpox, and once-vanquished diseases like smallpox.

“Those of us in public health recognize that another pandemic really could be around the corner,” said Loyce Pace, an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, who oversees the negotiations in her role as the United States liaison to the World Health Organization.

Negotiators had hoped to adopt the treaty next week. But canceled meetings and fractious debates — sometimes over a single word — stalled agreement on key sections, including equitable access to vaccines.

The negotiating body plans to ask for more time to continue the discussions.

“I’m still optimistic,” said Dr. Jean Kaseya, director general of Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “I think the continent wants this agreement. I think the world wants this agreement.”

Once adopted, the treaty would set legally binding policies for member countries of the W.H.O., including the United States, on surveillance of pathogens, rapid sharing of outbreak data, and local manufacturing and supply chains for vaccines and treatments, among others.

Contrary to rhetoric from some politicians in the United States and Britain , it would not enable the W.H.O. to dictate national policies on masking, or use armed troops to enforce lockdowns and vaccine mandates.

Next week’s deadline was self-imposed, and some public health experts have said it was far too ambitious — most treaties take many years — for such a complex endeavor. But negotiators were scrambling to ratify the treaty before elections in the United States and multiple European countries.

“Donald Trump is in the room,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the W.H.O. Center on Global Health Law, who has helped to draft and negotiate the treaty.

“If Trump is elected, he will likely torpedo the negotiations and even withdraw from W.H.O.,” Mr. Gostin said.

During his tenure as president, Mr. Trump severed ties with the W.H.O. , and he has recently signaled that, if re-elected, he might shutter the White House pandemic preparedness office.

Among the biggest bones of contention in the draft treaty is a section called Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing, under which countries would be required to swiftly share genetic sequences and samples of emerging pathogens. This information is crucial for rapid development of diagnostic tests, vaccines and treatments.

Low-income nations, including those in Africa, want to be compensated for the information with quick and equitable access to the developed tests, vaccines and treatments. They have also asked that pharmaceutical manufacturers share information that would allow local companies to manufacture the products at low cost.

“We don’t want to see Western countries coming to collect pathogens, going with pathogens, making medicines, making vaccines, without sending back to us these benefits,” Dr. Kaseya said.

Member countries have only ever agreed to one other health treaty, the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control , which strengthened control of the tobacco industry and decreased smoking rates in participating countries. But they were jolted by the devastation of the Covid pandemic and the inequities it reinforced to embark on a second.

The countries are also working on bolstering the W.H.O.’s International Health Regulations, which were last revised in 2005 and set detailed rules for countries to follow in the event of an outbreak that may breach borders.

In May 2021, an independent review of the global reaction to Covid-19 “found weak links at every point in the chain of preparedness and response.”

The pandemic also deepened mistrust between wealthier nations and poorer ones. By the end of 2021, more than 90 percent of people in some high-income countries had received two doses of Covid vaccines, compared with less than 2 percent in low-income nations. The lack of access to vaccines is thought to have caused more than a million deaths in low-income nations.

The treaty would be an acknowledgment of sorts that an outbreak anywhere threatens the entire globe, and that providing vaccines and other resources is beneficial to everyone. Variants of the coronavirus that emerged in countries with large unvaccinated populations swiftly swept across the world.

“Nearly half of U.S. deaths came from variants, so it’s in everybody’s interest to have a strong accord,” said Peter Maybarduk, who directs Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines program.

In December 2021, the W.H.O. established a group of negotiators to develop a legally binding treaty that would enable every country to prevent, detect and control epidemics, and allow for equitable allocation of vaccines and drugs.

More than two years into the negotiations, negotiators have agreed, at least in principle, on some sections of the draft.

But much of the good will generated during Covid has evaporated, and national interests have returned to the fore. Countries like Switzerland and the United States have been reluctant to accept terms that may affect the pharmaceutical industry; others like Argentina have fought against strict regulations on meat exports.

“It’s evident that people have very short memories,” said Dr. Sharon Lewin, director of the Cumming Global Center for Pandemic Therapeutics in Melbourne.

“But it can happen again, and it can happen with a pathogen that is far trickier to deal with than Covid was,” she warned.

One proposal for the Pathogen Access and Benefits Sharing section would require manufacturers to set aside 10 percent of vaccines to be donated, and another 10 percent to be provided at cost to the W.H.O. for distribution to low-income nations.

But that idea proved to be too complicated, said Roland Driece, who is one of the leaders of the negotiations. “We found along the way that that was too ambitious in the time frame.”

Instead, a working group established by the World Health Assembly will be tasked with hammering out the details of that section by May 2026, Mr. Driece said.

The terms of the proposed agreement have generated some confusion. In Britain, Nigel Farage, the conservative broadcaster and populist politician, and some other conservative politicians have claimed that the W.H.O. would force richer countries to give away 20 percent of their vaccines.

But that is an incorrect reading of the proposed agreement, Mr. Driece said. “It’s not the countries that have to come up with those vaccines, it’s the companies,” he said. Pharmaceutical companies would commit to the system in exchange for guaranteed access to data and samples needed to make their products.

Britain will not sign the treaty unless “it is firmly in the U.K. national interest and respects national sovereignty,” a spokesperson for the country’s health department told Reuters earlier this month.

In the United States, Republican senators have demanded that the Biden administration reject the treaty because it would “potentially weaken U.S. sovereignty.”

Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, W.H.O.’s director general, has roundly criticized what he called the “the litany of lies and conspiracy theories,” noting that the organization does not have the authority to dictate national public health policies, nor does it seek such power.

The secrecy surrounding the negotiations has made it difficult to counter misinformation, said James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, one of the few nonprofits with a window into the negotiations.

Having more people allowed into the discussion rooms or to see the drafts as they evolve would help clarify complicated aspects of the treaty, Mr. Love said.

“Also, the public could relax a bit if they’re actually reading the actual agreement on a regular basis,” he said.

Some proposals in the draft treaty would require massive investments, another sticking point in the negotiations.

To monitor emerging pathogens, wealthier nations endorse a so-called One Health strategy, which recognizes the interconnections between people, animals, plants and their shared environment. They want low-income countries to regulate live animal markets and limit trade in animal products — a big economic blow for some nations.

Last month, the Biden administration released its own strategy for global health security , with a focus on bilateral partnerships aimed at helping 50 countries bolster their pandemic response systems. The administration hopes to expand the list to 100 countries by the end of the year.

American support would help the countries, most of which are in Asia and Africa, strengthen their One Health systems and better manage outbreaks.

The U.S. strategy is meant to be complementary to the global treaty, and cannot serve as an alternative, public health experts said.

“In my view, this is the most important moment in global health since W.H.O. was founded in 1948,” Mr. Gostin said. “It would just be an unforgivable tragedy if we let this slip away after all the suffering of Covid.”

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focused on science and global health. She was a part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the pandemic. More about Apoorva Mandavilli

U.S. Department of the Treasury

Anchoring clean energy manufacturing investments in coal country and beyond.

by Luke Bassett, Director of Policy and Program Impact, IRA Implementation

There has long been a need to reinvest in coal country and communities that have been at the forefront of manufacturing and fossil fuel production in America. Now, President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is fueling demand for investment in clean energy manufacturing facilities in those communities. Initial allocations for the § 48C Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit point to this strong and growing appetite: the Biden-Harris administration announced $4 billion in tax credits for over 100 projects across 35 states to accelerate domestic clean energy manufacturing and reduce greenhouse gas emissions at industrial facilities, with $1.5 billion supporting projects in historic energy communities. Initial interest in concept papers submitted earlier in this first round indicated approximately 10 times more funding requested than the anticipated allocation. On May 22, 2024, the Department of Energy will open the 48C portal for Round 2 concept paper submissions, with the thirty-day concept paper submission period ending on June 21, 2024 at 5pm eastern time.

As a crucial component of President Biden’s economic engine, the § 48C credit is incentivizing and anchoring investments in clean energy manufacturing facilities – and the good-paying jobs that go along with them – to strengthen the economies of coal communities and other areas that have experienced underinvestment in past decades. This is a key part of the Inflation Reduction Act’s energy security and manufacturing agenda and is a proven way to help bring success to communities that need reinvestment. Through these efforts, the Biden-Harris Administration and the private sector are writing a new chapter in the history of investing in the nation’s clean energy manufacturing.

A History of Investing in American Clean Energy Manufacturing

After decades of underinvestment and jobs being shipped overseas, American manufacturing faced tremendous headwinds even before the 2008 Great Recession.

Responding to the 2008 crisis, President Barack Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act) into law. As part of an overall $90 billion investment in clean energy, the Recovery Act included the Advanced Energy Project Credit (§ 48C), a first-of-its-kind 30% investment tax credit, which allocated $2.3 billion to provide incentives to build, re-equip, or expand the facilities necessary to produce a new generation of clean energy technologies. When signed into law, the program criteria prioritized investments that would also enable domestic job creation, avoid or reduce pollution, and harness technological innovation.

As established in the Recovery Act, DOE reviews § 48C applications and makes recommendations to inform the IRS’s determinations of which applicants receive an allocation. Over the course of the initial § 48C program, DOE received applications requesting a total of more than $8 billion, or a nearly 3-to-1 ratio to available funding. The awarded funding catalyzed up to $5.4 billion in private investment across facilities designed to manufacture technologies from solar panels to carbon capture equipment to high-efficiency heat pumps and light bulbs.

Through the allocation of that initial $2.3 billion in the 2010s, the § 48C credit provided incentives to at least 38 states across clean energy product manufacturing, including: [1]

Batteries – $29.4 million;
Biomass – $29.3 million;
Building technologies – $146.6 million;
Carbon capture and sequestration technologies – $4.8 million;
Fuel cells – $5.5 million;
Geothermal – $8.9 million;
Industrial emissions technologies – $166.5 million;
Nuclear – $73.8 million;
Smart grid – $35.7 million;
Solar (photovoltaic and concentrated) – $840.9 million;
Vehicles – $46.8 million; and
Wind – $258.5 million.

Through these investments, the Recovery Act’s § 48C credit established a model for other provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act by providing incentives to clean energy manufacturing facilities as a method of economic relief for domestic supply chains.

Updating the § 48C Credit for a New Era

Over a longer period of time, the coal industry--and the workers and communities centered around it--had undergone a period of economic decline. Although total mine production had outpaced mine employment rates due to mechanization since the 1980s, recent trends pointed both to continuing decline in employment as well as declining production rates overall. [2]

U.S. coal production and coal mine operator employment trends

Lower exports of metallurgical coal combined with a competitive disadvantage between coal sources in the Appalachian basin and the Powder River basin had further depressed the industry central to coal communities in the eastern United States. And incentives in clean energy technologies – and their manufacturing supply chains – were not targeted at communities or workers losing jobs, instead following wind- or solar-rich areas elsewhere.

In 2021, as the United States faced the combined challenges of post-pandemic recovery, inflation, and an energy security crisis abroad, President Biden and the Congress turned again to the § 48C Credit as a mechanism to focus investment on clean energy manufacturing and the facilities that shore up – and onshore –supply chains and good-paying jobs. Beginning to address these intertwined economic and energy issues, Senator Joe Manchin III, Senator Debbie Stabenow, and Senator Steve Daines cosponsored a bipartisan update to § 48C – the American Jobs in Energy Manufacturing Act of 2021 . This bill reflected updates in technological trends, new demands in manufacturing, competitive investments in critical minerals processing, and the challenge posed by industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in incumbent facilities, from cement-making to chemical production and more. It subsequently became part of the tax provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act, as well as influencing other aspects of economic reinvestment provisions across President Biden’s agenda.

Seeking ways to invest directly in workers and communities where jobs had been lost over time, Senator Manchin led the legislative efforts to guarantee a sizable portion of the § 48C funding focus on communities in census tracts where coal mines have closed or coal-fired power plants have retired. Through President Biden’s leadership, the § 48C credit is a pivotal program in the Inflation Reduction Act and its reinvestment in manufacturing, the creation of good-paying jobs – including through new prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, and the high-skilled workers who live in coal communities.

With the additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, Treasury, the IRS, and the Department of Energy (DOE) reestablished the § 48C program and launched the first allocation round to spur project development and initial investment.

Timeline and Key Statistics of § 48C Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Program

February 17, 2009: Enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

January 8, 2010: Certification announcement for Recovery Act era program.

March 4, 2013: Reallocation announcement for Recovery Act era program.

Nearly one decade later…

August 16, 2022: Enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

February 13, 2023: Publication of initial guidance for the § 48C program and announcement of an anticipated first round allocation of $4 billion, with up to $1.6 billion anticipated for coal community census tracts.

May 31, 2023: Release of additional guidance describing submission requirements and other details relevant to the first allocation.

August 3, 2023: Deadline for first allocation project proposals (or concept papers). The § 48C program received concept papers seeking a total of nearly $42 billion in funding for the $4 billion available in its initial allocation round, or approximately 10 times more funding requested than the anticipated allocation. The received concept papers sought approximately $11 billion in funding for the designated coal communities set aside, or approximately 10 times greater than the $1.6 billion anticipated allocation. DOE provided applicants feedback related to their concept papers before applicants decide whether to submit a full application. Altogether, the submitted concept papers included requests for:

Approximately $27 billion in credits for Clean Energy Manufacturing and Recycling projects, that would leverage private investment for a total proposed project investment of approximately $92 billion.
Approximately $8 billion in credits for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction projects, that would leverage private investment for a total proposed project investment of approximately $28 billion.
Approximately $6 billion in credits for Critical Materials projects, that would leverage private investment for a total proposed project investment of approximately $21 billion.

December 26, 2023: Deadline for applications for first allocation. DOE received approximately 250 full applications from projects requesting a total of approximately $13.5 billion in tax credits.

March 29, 2024: Treasury, IRS, and DOE announced $4 billion in Round 1 tax credit allocations to over 100 projects across 35 states, including approximately $1.5 billion supporting projects in historic energy communities – communities with closed coal mines or coal plants under § 48C guidance Of the $4 billion allocated in Round 1:

Approximately $2.7 billion in tax credits for Clean Energy Manufacturing and Recycling projects.
Approximately $800 million in tax credits for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction projects.
Approximately $500 million in tax credits Critical Materials projects.

April 29, 2024: Release of guidance for round 2 tax credit allocations.

May 22, 2024: Opening of the 48C portal for round 2 concept paper submissions.

The § 48C credit program draws on a proven method of economic investment and sharpens that approach so that incentives draw private investment to unite the longstanding skills found in coal communities with the economic and energy security needs facing the nation today.

Additional Information on § 48C Qualifying Advanced Energy Project Credit

Treasury and the IRS issued guidance on Round 2 of the § 48C tax credit on April 29, 2024 and have provided guidance previously on the §48C credit program here .

You can find more information about the IRA’s tax incentives here and broader manufacturing-related incentives here .

[1] This analysis includes data reported and categorized by DOE but excludes the additional, uncategorized funding amounts allocated (and reported) under the §48C credit program at the time.

[2] Sources: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review , Table 6.1, November 2023. U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration, Mine Data Retrieval System , December 12, 2023.

IMAGES

By Using Corporate Social Responsibility: The Tobacco Industry Essay
Write an Essay On World No Tobacco Day in English
Effect of Tobacco: Why Cigarette Smoking Should Be Banned: [Essay
Sample essay on the impact of trade liberalization on tobacco consump…
British American Tobacco Essay Example
World No Tobacco Day Essay In English

VIDEO

How Big Tobacco Intentionally Made Snacks Addictive
world no tobacco day slogans in english/tambaku nishedh diwas par nare
О табачной индустрии: Что внутри сигареты
England bans tobacco FOREVER
essay on smoking in english/dhumrapan per nibandh
Essay on World No Tobacco Day| World No Tobacco Day par nibandh|

COMMENTS

Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
The tobacco industry already had a long history of innovative advertising, marketing, and public relations that had centered on making smoking universal. ... Parts of this essay appear in different form in my book The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America (New York: Basic Books, 2007).
Tobacco: Industry tactics to attract younger generations
There are 1.3 billion tobacco users worldwide. That number would be even larger if tobacco didn't kill half of its users. Every four seconds, tobacco takes another life. Decades of the tobacco industry's deception and devious tactics have hooked generations of users to nicotine and tobacco, driving this global epidemic. The multi-billion-dollar industry recruits new tobacco and nicotine ...
Truth Tobacco Industry Documents
Truth Tobacco Industry Documents (formerly known as Legacy Tobacco Documents Library) was created in 2002 by the UCSF Library. It was built to house and provide permanent access to tobacco industry internal corporate documents produced during litigation between US States and the seven major tobacco industry organizations and other sources.
Tobacco Industry: Production and Harm to Health
The Wars and the entertainment industry contributed to the growth in consumers of tobacco, by 1955 57% of men and 28% of women smoked. The entertainment industry regarded cigarettes with glamour and style. The rise in women's smoking was often due to women's suffrage, "Commentators openly associated cigarettes with women's emancipation".
The US Cigarette Industry: An Economic and Marketing Perspective
Methods: We conducted an unstructured narrative review of the economics and marketing literature using an antitrust framework that considers: 1) market; definition, 2) market concentration; 3) entry barriers; and 4) firm conduct. Results: Since the 1960s, U.S. cigarette market concentration has increased primarily due to mergers and growth in ...
The Tobacco Industry Ethical Nature of a Business Essay
Introduction. In spite of the public's concerns, the tobacco industry develops in most high-income countries. This situation provokes a discussion on the ethical nature of a business that offers products that are traditionally considered as potentially harmful for consumers. However, the tobacco industry develops according to the laws of the ...
Tobacco
The tobacco industry is fighting to ensure the dangers of their products are concealed, but we are fighting back. The WHO FCTC is a milestone in the promotion of public health. It is an evidence-based treaty that reaffirms the right of people to the highest standard of health, provides legal dimensions for international health cooperation and ...
The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking ...
Decades after its ill effects on human health were first documented, tobacco smoking remains one of the major global drivers of premature death and disability. In 2017, smoking was responsible for ...
The Tobacco Industry United States: [Essay Example], 1992 words
Tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, and masticated tobacco, are grown, processed, and sold by the US tobacco industry. Since colonial times, tobacco has been grown and sold in the U.S. and engendered enormous amounts of profits.
Tobacco Industry Essay Examples
Tobacco Industry Essays. That Cloud of Smoke Is Not a Mirage. The document in question is a 2022 New York Times article by John Ortved titled "That Cloud of Smoke Is Not a Mirage," which serves as a valuable primary source for understanding the competitive and aggressive advertising tactics utilized by significant cigarette companies in ...
The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions
Context: In 1954 the tobacco industry paid to publish the "Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" in hundreds of U.S. newspapers. It stated that the public's health was the industry's concern above all others and promised a variety of good-faith changes. What followed were decades of deceit and actions that cost millions of lives.
Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers
Introduction. Tobacco use, including smoking, has become a universally recognized issue that endangers the health of the population of our entire planet through both active and second-hand smoking. Pro-tobacco arguments are next to non-existent, while its harm is well-documented and proven through past and contemporary studies (Jha et al., 2013).
Essay on Tobacco Industry Analysis
The tobacco industry involves companies that sell and produce tobacco products all around the world. Tobacco products include cigarette, cigar, pipe, and chewing tobacco. Tobacco smoking is "the single largest cause of preventable death and disease in our community." (Tobacco. 2006) With a society becoming more prosperous, education is ...
Tobacco Industry: Sources of Historical Research
These sources provide an overview of the history of tobacco as a crop and economic driver in the history of the United States. If you are looking for information on specific states see the Tobacco in the States page of this guide. If you are looking for older trade periodicals see the subpage in the Research the Industry part of this guide. For those looking to research the Colonial time ...
Tobacco and the environment
The tobacco industry is responsible for producing much more than tobacco products—they are guilty of creating hundreds of thousands of pounds of cigarette and e-cigarette waste each year. Cigarette and e-cigarette waste presents serious threats to the ecosystem and requires a long-term solution. Instead of accepting responsibility for their ...
ᐅ Essays On Tobacco Industry Free Argumentative, Persuasive
Tobacco Industry essays require a range of skills including understanding, interpretation and analysis, planning, research and writing. To write an effective essay on Tobacco Industry, you need to examine the question, understand its focus and needs, obtain information and evidence through research, then build a clear and organized answer. ...
Tobacco Industry Essay Examples
Most definitely, among all those Tobacco Industry essay examples, you will find a paper that conforms with what you imagine as a worthy paper. You can be sure that literally every Tobacco Industry item showcased here can be used as a bright example to follow in terms of general structure and writing different parts of a paper - introduction ...
The Tobacco industry
This page of the essay has 6,311 words. Download the full version above. In 1964, the Surgeon General of the United States of America published a report documenting all of the known health risks associated with smoking cigarettes. Up until that point, cigarettes were so prevalent in American culture that doctors smoked and tobacco companies ...
Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms Essay Example [Free]
Essay. Since the date of its formation, tobacco industry appears to be one of the most successful and profitable industries. Every year, more than 5 000 000 000 000 cigarettes are produced in the world. Around 300 billion US dollars are earned by the companies in the industry. In the following paper, the current situation in this business area ...
Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions
Tobacco use is a global epidemic among young people. As with adults, it poses a serious health threat to youth and young adults in the United States and has significant implications for this nation's public and economic health in the future (Perry et al. 1994; Kessler 1995). The impact of cigarette smoking and other tobacco use on chronic disease, which accounts for 75% of American spending ...
Tobacco Industry
Tobacco industry entices people to use the product, but standards have been set with regards to the use, advertising or sale of tobacco-based products. People have the right to choose. Therefore, they are responsible for their own decisions. ... On our website, students and learners can find detailed writing guides, free essay samples, fresh ...
Tobacco and nicotine industry tactics addict youth for life
The World Health Organization (WHO) and STOP, a global tobacco industry watchdog, are launching today "Hooking the next generation," a report highlighting how the tobacco and nicotine industry designs products, implements marketing campaigns and works to shape policy environments to help them addict the world's youth. This comes just ahead of World No Tobacco Day marked on 31 May, where ...
WHO / WORLD TOBACCO DAY
23 May 2024. The World Health Organization (WHO) and STOP, a global tobacco industry watchdog, are launching "Hooking the next generation," a report highlighting how the tobacco and nicotine industry designs products, implements marketing campaigns and works to shape policy environments to help them addict the world's youth. WHO.
Tobacco Industry Aims to Hook New Generation on Vapes, WHO Says
LONDON (Reuters) -Tobacco companies still actively target young people via social media, sports and music festivals and new, flavoured products, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on ...
Tobacco industry essay
Tobacco industry continues to persuade numerous people that smoking is not associated with multiple health risks. For instance, back in 1950s, tobacco industry was faced with the fact that smoking causes lung cancer and various other diseases. In response to such suggestions, tobacco industry started fixing filters to cigarettes promising that this would prevent possible
"Deny, denounce, delay": The battle over the risk of ultra-processed
FT analysis of US lobbying data from non-profit Open Secrets found that food and soft drinks-related companies spent $106 million on lobbying in 2023, almost twice as much as the tobacco and ...
Tobacco industry manipulation of research.
Tobacco industry manipulation of research. - PMC. Journal List. Public Health Rep. v.120 (2); Mar-Apr 2005. PMC1497700. As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Countries Fail to Agree on Treaty to Prepare the World for the Next
Member countries have only ever agreed to one other health treaty, the 2003 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which strengthened control of the tobacco industry and decreased smoking rates ...
Anchoring Clean Energy Manufacturing Investments in Coal Country and
Initial interest in concept papers submitted earlier in this first round indicated approximately 10 times more funding requested than the anticipated allocation. On May 22, 2024, the Department of Energy will open the 48C portal for Round 2 concept paper submissions, with the thirty-day concept paper submission period ending on June 21, 2024 at ...

The effects of tobacco control policies on global smoking prevalence

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

The economic commitment of climate change

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the effectiveness of carbon pricing

Source data

Smoking outcome data

MPOWER data

Statistical analysis

Counterfactual analysis

Reporting Summary

Data availability

Code availability

Acknowledgements

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 2 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 15 to 29 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 30 to 49 years old (age-standardized) in 2017.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Prevalence of current smoking for men (a) and women (b) aged 50 years and older (age-standardized) in 2017.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Percentage changes in current smoking prevalence based on fixed effect coefficients from bivariate mixed effect linear regression models, by policy component, sex and age group.

Supplementary information

Source Data Fig. 1

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 1

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 2

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3

Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

This article is cited by

Challenges in legitimizing further measures against smoking in jurisdictions with robust infrastructure for tobacco control: how far can the authorities allow themselves to go?

Global smoking-related deaths averted due to MPOWER policies implemented at the highest level between 2007 and 2020

Health effects associated with exposure to secondhand smoke: a Burden of Proof study

Predictors of quitting smoking behavior: evidence from Pakistan

Quick links

The Tobacco Industry United States

Works Cited

Cite this Essay

Related Essays

Still can’t find what you need?

Related Essays on Tobacco

Related Topics

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

Tobacco Industry Essays

Tobacco Smoking and Its Dangers Essay

It Is Not That Dangerous

Tobacco Has Positive Effects

It Is My Free Choice

Our top issues

Research & resources

Search by keywords

Get involved

Join our newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter

Tobacco and the environment

BIODEGRADABILITY

LAND, COASTAL AND WATER POLLUTION

THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY’S EFFECTS ON DEFORESTATION

INDUSTRY ACCOUNTABILITY FOR TOBACCO WASTE

TOBACCO INDUSTRY NEGLIGENCE

POLICIES TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

More in harmful effects of tobacco

Essay: The Tobacco industry

Text preview of this essay:

About this essay:

Essay Categories:

Tobacco Industry: Products and Firms

The products provided

Top five firms in the industry

China National Tobacco Co

Philip Morris International Inc (Altria Group Inc)

British American Tobacco

Japan Tobacco International

Imperial Tobacco Group

The problems in the industry

Changes in government controls